Sitting of 17 April 1882

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Ecclesiastical and Mortuary Fees, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. George Russell, and Mr. H. Davenport added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Artillery Ranges* [125], discharged.
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Electric Lighting [122].
Committee—Report—Army (Annual) [105].

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION-COLONELS OF THE ORDNANCE CORPS.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has considered the case of the Lieutenant Colonels of the Ordnance Corps who will be placed on half-pay on the 1st October next, and whether he proposes to take further steps to retire the pre-warrant Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels of those Corps, so that the half-pay Lieutenant Colonels junior to them may be employed, instead of being compelled to retire from the Army; and, if it is not the case that the actuarial calculations prove such future steps would produce an economy in pensions, and that the efficiency of the Service will be increased by the retirement of the seniors instead of the juniors?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that this case has been under my consideration for nearly two years. Lord Morley's Committee on Promotion and Employment in the Royal Artillery and Engineers specially dealt with it, the result being that a large number of colonels and lieutenant colonels promoted before October, 1877, have been retired; but I do not think that I could offer better terms to those who remain (that is to say, three colonels holding ordinary district commands, and 15 lieutenant colonels) than the terms offered in the recent Warrant, of which they did not avail themselves. The last words of my hon. Friend's first Question implied that an officer is compelled to retire from the Army when unemployed. This is not so, those officers having the option of going to half-pay for five years with the chances of re-employment. In reply to the second Question, I can only say that I am not satisfied that economy would be the result of any feasible plan extending the retirement of lieutenant colonels of Engineers. Such an extension would have to be very large if any additional boon were to result to their juniors.

  ARMY—THE REVISED ARMY WARRANT—ARTICLE 23.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the difference of wording of Article 23, recently inserted in the Revised Warrant of the 25th of June 1881, and Article 22 of the same Warrant, which provides that General and Field Officers, exceptionally promoted for distinguished service in the Field, shall be selected for promotion on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, and that their service shall be published in the London Gazette; and, whether he proposes, in any future revision, to alter the said Article in accordance with established and constitutional precedent?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, my noble Friend's Question appears to me to be based on two misconceptions. In the first place, by Article 27, all promotions are made upon the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, approved by the Secretary of State. Secondly, Lord Cranbrook's Warrant of May, 1878, Articles 18f, 21h, and 23f, established promotions for captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels on account of distinguished service of an exceptional nature other than in the field; and the present Warrant only allows such promotions, using precisely the same words, for colonels and officers of higher rank. I presume, however, that the real suggestion of my noble Friend is that the reasons for these promotions should appear in The Gazette. Hitherto service in the field has been the only service mentioned in a Gazette, and with the object solely of doing honour to the officer; and I am disinclined to weaken the effect of these notices by extending them to promotions for other causes.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILgave Notice that he would take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—UNIFORMS OF SCOTCH REGIMENTS.
  COLONEL MILNE HOMEasked the Secretary of State for War, What compensation will be given to officers in the Royal Scots and other regiments where the present uniform is to be changed into doublet and trews?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; the regulated compensation will be granted on the officers' application.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. PARNELL.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that, seeing the Attorney General in his place, he would now ask him the following Question, of which he had only given the hon. and learned Gentleman private Notice—namely, Whether Mr. Parnell, M.P., having been arrested on the 13th of October, under the provisions of the 44th of Victoria, cap. 4, sec. 1, and having been released from custody on the 11th of April, can be lawfully rearrested and detained in custody under the original warrant; and whether, if a new warrant is necessary, it must not be issued in virtue of a new offence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The hon. Member said he gave me private Notice of this Question; but I received no Notice whatever until I entered the House. I must, therefore, ask him to put his Question on the Paper, to be answered by myself or the Irish Law Officers to-morrow.
  MR. LEWISgave Notice that he would ask the Question to-morrow. As it related to the liberty of the subject, he thought that no great Notice ought to have been required under the circumstances. He had left the Notice in the room of the Attorney General nearly an hour ago.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): What is that?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.— [Bill 105.]
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to put a question to the Chairman on a point of Order. He had given Notice of his intention to move the insertion of two or three new clauses at the end of Clause 3,
  734
  and he wished to know at what stage of the Bill he was to move them?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, they must be moved at the end of the Bill.
  Clause 4 (Correction of misprints in 44 and 45 Vict. c. 58).
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)moved, in page 3, after line 31, to insert—
  "(5.) In section one hundred and forty-five of 'The Army Act, 1881,' the words 'when any order or decree' shall be substituted for the words 'when any order, decree' in the second sub-section."
  He explained that the Amendment had been rendered necessary by the addition of the word "or" after "order."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEXTONrose to move the insertion of a new clause to provide that there should be paid to every soldier engaged in special service relating to the recovery of rents, ejectments, and evictions in Ireland, a daily sum, by way of extra allowance, over and above his regular daily pay, equal to the daily extra sum allowed for similar service to each member of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that this clause and the clause which follows, relating to the rates to be paid to carmen, are not in Order, because they propose to increase the sums considered to be necessary by the Crown in the Estimates for the Army, and, therefore, they cannot be put. The third clause of the hon. Member is in. Order.
  MR. HEALY, on the point of Order, wished to ask if the Chairman was aware that the late Chairman of Committees (Mr. Cecil Raikes) allowed the hon. Member for Galway to move an Amendment of a similar character? Was the ruling which the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had just given, given with a knowledge of the course taken by his Predecessor?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have not, at the moment, been able to read the ruling to which the hon. Member refers; but I have a distinct recollection of it. The Rule then laid down, as I recollect, rendered it possible to move such an Amendment in a Bill which had not any force

  735
  in law, but which required an annual Act of Parliament to bring it into force. But the present Bill is of a different character, because it becomes an Act which is in itself law; and, therefore, the ruling to which the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) has referred does not apply.
  MR. SEXTONremarked, that the gross sum involved was not a very large one, and the expense was one which was under the control of the War Office.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Whether the sum be large or small, as it is larger than is considered by the responsible Minister of the Crown to be necessary for the Public Service, it would be an increase; and, being an increase, it would be quite out of Order for a private Member to move it.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the second of the proposed clauses raised a question of very considerable importance—namely, whether very gross cruelty was not practised in the way in which the cars were used by the police and the military? It might be that there were outrages and cases of cruelty to animals in certain parts of Ireland; but he was prepared to contend that much greater cruelty was practised by persons in the pay of the Government in putting the law into force.
  MR. SEXTONobserved that, if it would be in Order, he should be glad to move the latter part of the second of the proposed new clauses, which merely related to the manner in which the cars were to be used. He was personally acquainted with the fact that a great deal of cruelty was practised towards horses in Ireland, and that the property of the car owners was very much damaged. The only object of the latter part of the clause was to impose regulations upon the police and military in regard to the use of private property in Ireland, so as to prevent, in future, not only cruelty to horses, hut damage to property. He should be glad to know whether it was competent for him to move the latter part of the clause?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That portion of the clause, I think, would be in Order.
  MR. SEXTONsaid he would move, then, after Clause 3, to insert the following Clause:—
  "No car shall be used for the conveyance of more than four soldiers, and shall not he driven upon any one day, unleas a change of horses be
  The Chairman
  736
  provided, more than eight miles out and eight miles back, and shall not be driven at a pace exceeding six miles per hour."
  At present, in some parts of Ireland, it was no uncommon circumstance to find a car crowded with six or seven soldiers, who were driven great distances often by inexperienced persons and sometimes by the soldiers themselves. The consequence was that the horses were frequently rendered useless to their owners for any further work for a considerable time. The horses were driven at a headlong speed and were often covered with foam. In the present excited state of Ireland, when the direction of affairs was presided over by persons at a distance, he considered that it was desirable for Parliament to interfere, in order that there might not be added to all the other elements of confusion, excitement, and ill-feeling, cruelty to animals, and the wanton injury and destruction of private property by persons in a subordinate position. He simply asked that when a magistrate or other officer took a car for the purpose of serving evictions, he should see that the horse and car were used in a fair and proper way. Of course, the regulations which were submitted in the clause would be subject to modification at the discretion of the Committee. He simply threw them out as the basis of a rational settlement; and if the proposal were accepted, he felt sure that it would be received with thankfulness by the Irish people. He was also satisfied, from the courtesy which was always displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that the proposition would receive fair consideration.
  New Clause—
  "No car shall be used for the conveyance of more than four soldiers, and shall not be driven upon any one day, unless a change of horses be provided, more than eight miles out and eight miles back, and shall not be driven at a pace exceeding six miles per hour,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. CHILDERS: I do not think that it is either expedient or neceseary that I should enter at length into a discussion of the question; but I think I can give the hon. Gentleman very good reasons why I object to the clause, when

  737
  I say that, as a matter of fact, the cars which have been employed in Ireland have practically been obtained by the ordinary process, and not under the compulsory clauses of the Act. In one case, where complaint arose, the circumstances wore considered by myself on an appeal at the War Office, and that which was deemed to be just was done. I think, therefore, that the clause, as proposed to be altered, would really only apply to the employment of cars in Ireland in a manner in which they have never yet been employed, and would, therefore, be entirely nugatory. I would suggest that it would be much better to leave the matter as it is now, so that any complaint as to the unfair use of cars may be dealt with by the authorities at the War Office. They have only hitherto been employed when necessary. What I promised the other day, on the second reading, was that I would look into the matter carefully before next year, and I added that if any complaints were made in the meanwhile I would consider them, and they would be dealt with on principles of justice. I cannot, therefore, give my consent to the introduction into the present Bill of a clause which would not affect the general practise, but would only deal with cases which have not hitherto occurred, and which are not likely to occur. For these reasons I hope the hon. Member will not press the clause.
  MR. HEALYthought that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was placed in a position of considerable disadvantage in having had his clause curtailed. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be unaware of the fact that a considerable number of seizures of cars had been made by the military authorities under the compulsory clauses of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been no seizure by soldiers.
  MR. CHILDERS: What I said was that no complaints had arisen except in one case. In the particular districts in which it has been necessary to employ cars the Government have not taken advantage of the powers of the Act, and we have been very careful to see that no injustice was done.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that that being so did not do away with the opposition of the Irish Members, nor in the slightest degree alter their position. Their cou-
  738
  tention was that when ears were seized under the compulsory clauses of the Act there should be due compensation awarded; that care should be taken that no unfair use was made of the cars; that the horses should not be over driven, and that the cars should not be crowded. He had read in the papers the other day an account of a case in which the use of cars having been refused, the soldiers and police seized them, and drove them at such a rate that the knees of the horses were cut and broken. In every instance the car used was improperly crowded. He was not in a position to state that the facts reported in the papers were absolutely true; but he thought some inquiry ought to be made into them. What he desired now to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was an assurance, in the event of injury being done to the horses, or where there was a complaint of overloading and damage to the cars, he would at once cause an investigation to be made, and see that the person who made the complaint was properly compensated. He presumed that, as far as the clause moved by his hon. Friend was concerned, he could scarcely expect the last part of it would be inserted, seeing that the first portion had been ruled by the Chairman to be informal. All he desired was that an assurance should be given by the right hon. Gentleman that whenever a compulsory seizure of cars was made, and it could be proved that the horses had been driven unfairly and the property damaged, the owners of the cars should have a claim for compensation.
  MR, CHILDERS: I have no hesitation in giving an assurance to that effect, inasmuch as that is the principle upon which the War Office has already acted.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman was not altogether satisfactory, as it only went to a certain length. The right hon. Gentleman promised that compensation would be made in all cases in which it could be shown that the horses or cars had been unfairly treated. In such cases, of course, the owners would be entitled to be paid for the damage done; but the right hon. Gentleman made no provision whatever for the unfortunate horses. It was, unfortunately, the custom in Ireland, when

  739
  evictions were to be carried out, to drive the horses over heavy roads, at an unreasonable pace and for an unreasonable distance. In fact, the amount of cruelty perpetrated in this way was very much in excess of anything that had taken place in the cases which had been cited in the House as instances of cruelty to animals.
  MR. CHILDERS: Of course, I cannot undertake to compensate horses; but I will see that justice is done to owners, where exceptional arrangements have to be made.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, his object in moving the clause was to obtain an assurance that the owners would be compensated for any injury inflicted upon them. He had every confidence, after the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, that when a well-founded complaint was made to him the owners would receive due compensation; and he would therefore, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the clause.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had now to move a clause relating to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children. He proposed in page 3, after Clause 5, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Liability of soldiers to maintain wife and children.)
  "Whereas it is desirable that the liability of a soldier or Marine to maintain his wife and children should be real and better defined, and it is expedient to provide for the same: Be it therefore enacted, as follows:—
  "That section 145 of 'The Army Act, 1881,' shall be construed—
  "(1.) As though the word 'shall' stood in the place of 'may' in sub-section 2, Clause 6:
  "(2) As though all the words after 'commanding officer of such soldier,' in sub-section 3, were omitted."
  The object of the clause was to interpret the 145th section of the Act of 1881 in such a manner as to compel a soldier to maintain his wife and children, whether such children were born in wedlock or otherwise. The existing law was, in his (Mr. Sexton's) opinion, seriously defective. Several years had passed since a clause was inserted in the Mutiny Act, declaring that every soldier belonging to the Regular Forces was liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife
  740
  and children to the same extent as a civilian. But although several years had passed since that provision, declaring that the soldier should be made liable for the first of his natural obligations, was inserted, it was nevertheless the fact that the provision had been rendered altogether nugatory by the stipulations with which it was surrounded. It had been stated, that in the first parochial year following the insertion of this provision in the Mutiny Act, the total amount paid by the Secretary of State for War to the wives and children of soldiers, and towards the maintenance of children whose mothers were not married, amounted to £1,500. He had since learned, however, that this statement was altogether inaccurate; and he was informed by a leading member of an association which took an interest in the question that the total amount paid by the Secretary of State in the first parochial year, instead of being £1,500, was only £58. He thought that fact was amply sufficient in itself to show that the provision which had been inserted in the Act, which professed to place a soldier on the same level as a civilian, had totally failed. He would explain in a few words what the present position of a soldier was. If a man deserted his wife and children and enlisted into Her Majesty's Army, what steps had the wife to take in order to obtain proper support for herself and family. In the first place, she was obliged to go to the Union and obtain relief; and then she was required to procure a summons to be served on her husband's commanding officer, wherever he might happen to be. It was a shameful fact that the organization of the British Army was conducted in such a way that before a man became liable to these obligations care was taken to remove him from the town in which he was likely to become liable, before the woman could take any steps to assert her rights. But that was not all. The wife had, in the first instance, to go to the workhouse; in the second place, to apply to the Board of Guardians for a summons against the commanding officer; in the third, she was required to serve the summons at the place where the soldier was quartered; and, fourthly, she was required to deposit with the summons a sum of money sufficient to take the soldier from the place where he was quartered to the

  741
  place where the case was to be heard, and then to take him back again. In the case of a mother who was not the wife, the same regulations were enforced. She had to apply for a summons to be served on the commanding officer of the soldier wherever he happened to be quartered, and to deposit a sum of money sufficient to bring him to the place of hearing and take him back again. The Committee would see that such a requirement amounted, in many cases, to a total abnegation of justice. He was informed that the effect of the regulation was to make it necessary for a poor woman who had any claim upon a soldier to deposit a sum of money that was never less than £2, and which often exceeded that sum. A poor woman was often unable to procure such a sum; and the enforcement of the regulation, therefore, amounted to a total denial of justice. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War dropped an observation on the second reading of the Bill which seemed to have some force—namely, that if the mere issue of a summons was all that was required to bring a soldier from his quarters, there would be cases of collusion with a view to enabling the soldier to desert. Of course, that danger would exist; but he (Mr. Sexton) thought the resources of the law would be sufficient to guard against it. But even if it did occur, was it to be said that because in one case out of 100 there might be collusion between a soldier and a woman in order to enable the soldier to desert from Her Majesty's Service, that in the 99 other cases defenceless women having a legal claim upon the soldier should be deprived of the means of asserting their claims to the maintenance of their children and themselves? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not attempt to maintain that contention. It had also been pointed out that the soldier, at the time the summons was served, might be with his regiment ordered for foreign service. He (Mr. Sexton) did not think the mere fact that the man was ordered for foreign service should amount to a plenary indulgence. Surely the Service of the Queen had not come to such a pass that every individual soldier under orders for foreign service must be protected against his civil liabilities. If any class of Her Majesty's
  742
  subjects deserved commiseration at the hands of the Committee it was these unfortunate women, whether they were wives or otherwise, who were abandoned by the men who were morally bound to protect and maintain them. He should be surprised if the Government, desiring and affecting as they did to be considered a moral Government, should take upon themselves to say that Her Majesty's Army was to be a refuge for every abandoned man who desired to desert those who had a natural claim upon him. He did not address this complaint in particular to right hon. Gentlemen now in Office. The matter was not new to the House of Commons, and there were more than one hon. and right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench who had, on a previous occasion, voted for an Amendment identical with that which he was about to submit to the Committee. It was, therefore, no new affair. Among those who had already supported a similar Amendment were the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke), the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson), the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), the hon. and learned Solicitor General for England (Sir Farrer Herschell), the noble Lord the Member for Haverford west (Lord Kensington), and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella). All of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had already voted for the Amendment, and he trusted that he should have their support on the present occasion. When, however, a woman had gone through all the various preliminary stages which he had described—after she had gone into the workhouse, obtained a summons, and deposited a sum of money necessary to bring the soldier to the place where the case was to be heard, and take him back again, she could then obtain in her favour a reduction of the soldier's pay. But even then the discretion of the Secretary of State for War was interposed, and she was likely to be deprived of the small sum awarded to her. The Act of Parliament said that the Secretary of State "may," at his discretion and good pleasure, order g, portion of the pay not exceeding 6d. per day in the case of a ser-

  743
  geant or non-commissioned officer above the rant of an ordinary soldier, and of 3d. a day in the case of a private, to be appropriated in liquidation of the woman's claim, "in such manner as the Secretary of State may think fit." It was unnecessary to point out to the Committee that the sum authorized to be deducted from the pay of the soldier was in all conscience small enough without the interposition of any discretionary power on the part of the Secretary of State. In the case of non-commissioned officers and sergeants it was only 6d., and of a private 3d. He (Mr. Sexton) presumed that these sums were fixed upon, in the first instance, because they were sums which could be deducted from the pay of these persons without disorganizing the internal economy of the regiment to which they belonged or interfering with the efficiency of the Army. Nobody would be prepared to say that when a soldier had left his wife and children destitute, or a mother and child, although the mother might not happen to be his wife—nobody would say that in such a case the payment of 6d. a-day by a noncommissioned officer and 3d. by a private was too much for the purpose of maintaining them. What he (Mr. Sexton) claimed was this—that when the woman had laboriously put the law into operation, and obtained a decree from a regularly constituted tribunal for this miserable sum, she should not be further embarrassed and handicapped by the exercise of the discretionary power of the Secretary of State. His first Amendment—for there were really two contained in the clause he was about to submit—was to abolish the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State; to render the provisions of the Act honest instead of illusory, and to do away with a discretion which, if really exercised at all, could only be interposed between a soldier and his natural obligations and liabilities. The second provision contained in the clause was to abolish the regulations which obliged a mother, on obtaining a summons, to deposit a sum of money necessary to defray the cost of bringing the soldier to the place where the case was to be heard and taking him back again. He based the clause upon the broad ground that a soldier, as well as a civilian, if he rendered himself liable to the law for the maintenance of a woman and child, who were among
  744
  the most helpless classes known to the law, the public funds, if necessary, should be used in conveying the soldier to the place where he was called upon to answer for his default. It was intolerable, discreditable, and disgraceful to a country like this that military discipline should be used to shelter a man from claims against him which the law would sternly require him to answer if he were a civilian. He took his ground upon the language of the Statute, which said that a soldier should be equally liable with a civilian; but he contended that, as the Act now stood, he was not equally liable. He asked that this delusive discretionary power should be removed. A regiment could not lose much by the temporary loss of the services of such a man. If it were necessary to alter the Regulations of the War Office, and to make a rule that when a soldier upon whom such a claim was made was ordered upon foreign service, he should not, as at present, obtain practical immunity by going abroad, but should be detained to answer the charge, and should follow his regiment by another steamer, or be drafted, if necessary, into another regiment. At any rate, let justice be done to the woman and her children wherever they might be scattered. This was not an Irish question; Irishmen formed only a comparatively small portion of the British Army, and he did not believe that of that infinitesimally small proportion any large number ever deserted their wives and children. It was essentially an English question, and he now moved the insertion of the new clause, leaving it for the English Members and the Government to say how it was to be dealt with.
  New Clause (Mr. Sexton) brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, the clause proposed, as the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) had pointed out, really involved two different Amendments. The first related to the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State. The hon. Member had complained of the very small amount of money paid over by the Secretary of State under this

  745
  section of the Act of Parliament; but he seemed to forget that that was owing to the peculiar conditions under which alone the liability could arise. The cases of unrecognized marriages were very rare indeed, and for this reason. When a man desired to enlist in the Army and was attested, he was asked, in his attestation paper, if he was a married or a single man; and if he replied that he was married he was not accepted. If he stated that he was single, when in reality he was married, he rendered himself liable to be proceeded against under the 33rd section of the Army Act; and he might be sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. The result was that exceedingly few married men entered the Service; and as the bulk of the men who entered the Army were unmarried men, no large claim in respect of legitimate children could arise. The provision in relation to the wives and children of soldiers was introduced into the Act by Lord Cardwell in 1871, after the most careful consideration; and Lord Cardwell addressed himself to the subject with the express desire of arranging matters in such a way as to meet the exigencies of the Service, and, at the same time, to do justice to the soldiers' families, and those who might have a claim upon them. The first section of the Army Act which the hon. Member sought to amend was the 145th, which gave a discretionary power to the Secretary of State. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) did not see how they were to do away with the exercise of this discretionary power altogether. He had never yet heard of any complaint having been made against the exercise of the power; and that being so, to do away with all discretion whatever, and to tie up the bands of the Secretary of State and make it imperative on him to make an order in every case, would be most objectionable. There could not be the slightest doubt that wherever an order ought to be made it would be made. So much with regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Amendment. In regard to the second question raised by the clause, the bon. Member must surely be aware that, for a purpose like this, there existed a vast difference between a soldier and a civilian. In the case of a civilian, the father and mother of the child probably resided in the same parish, and
  746
  there would be nothing to take the father away. But in the case of a soldier, he might be ordered with his regiment to the furthest part of the Kingdom, or perhaps out of the country altogether. If, therefore, some woman took out a summons for the making of an affiliation order upon him, he would be obliged to go all the way at his own expense, or at the expense of the public, when it might not be certain that the charge was well founded. Anyone who had any experience of magisterial inquiries knew that these cases were constantly trumped up; and it was necessary to require the woman to deposit what might be looked upon as caution money as a proof of the bona fides of her claim. In common justice to the soldier and for the requirements of the Service, it was absolutely necessary that some such provision as this should be maintained with the view of preventing unfounded charges from being recklessly made. For these reasons he should certainly oppose the Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General altogether failed to meet the case established by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). The case of his hon. Friend was a most rational one. The law, as it stood at present, amounted to this—all that a woman could get from a private soldier was 3d. a-day, which amounted to a little over £4 10 s. a-year, or 6d. a-day from a sergeant or noncommissioned officer, which amounted to a little more than £9 a-year. The amount was so exceedingly small that a person must be in a very poor position in life to make it worth while to obtain it; and it was absurd to suppose that she would have sufficient means at her command to enable her to deposit the sum of money which the law now required her to deposit. Therefore, unless the Government were prepared to contend that the woman should have no redress at all, it was most desirable that the law should be altered. He would suggest that, instead of a sum of money being required to be lodged by the woman upon instituting proceedings, it should be competent for the preliminary Court—namely, the magistrate—to receive evidence from the soldier in the shape of an affidavit, which the Court might consider for what it was worth.

  747
  If the Court were of opinion that an order should be made, and the soldier still disputed the claim and thought he could establish a stronger case, then let him attend the place of hearing at his own expense. It certainly appeared to him that if a wife made a claim for the maintenance and support of herself and her children, she should not be required, as a preliminary step, to deposit a large sum of money, especially when it was taken into consideration that, after all, it was competent for the Secretary of State to refuse his assent to the judgment of the magistrate. Certainly, if the money were actually deposited by the woman, it should be in the power of the magistrate who heard the case to deliver a final judgment without the Secretary of State having any discretionary voice in the matter. At present the woman was placed in a most unfortunate position. She had not only to make out her case and establish her claim under circumstances of extreme hardship and difficulty, but she was liable to have any judgment in her favour revised by a tribunal before which she could not be heard. It appeared to him, as the matter now stood, that the provision made on behalf of the woman was entirely illusory, and that she was altogether without the power of obtaining redress. There was nothing whatever, as far as he was able to see, to justify the opposition which was given to the clause by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was quite aware that on former occasions, when this question had been brought before the House, there was a feeling on that side in the direction of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). But it did seem to him, upon the present occasion, that the form in which the proposal was now made was such that it was quite impossible for them to accept it. There were two distinct propositions contained in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The first appeared to him to be a reasonable one. He thought the substitution of the word "shall" for "may," in the 145th section of the Army Act, would be altogether an improvement. He differed from his right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that the effect of the alteration of this word
  748
  would be to leave the Secretary of State without discretion in the matter. The Secretary of State would still have a wide discretion, and the Committee must bear in mind that the action of the Secretary of State did not take place until after the matter had been before a judicial tribunal. Before the matter could come under the notice of the Secretary of State at all there must be some order or decree under the provisions of the Common Law for the payment by a soldier or a non-commissioned officer belonging to the Regular Forces for the maintenance of his wife or child, or of any bastard child, of which he was the father. When the case was decided according to the legal requirements the order was sent to the Secretary of State, who had power to direct it to be enforced, and to make a reduction from the pay of the soldier for the support of his wife and legitimate or illegitimate children. Then the Act went on to say that the Secretary of State may—
  "Order a portion of the soldier's pay, not exceeding a certain amount, to be appropriated for this purpose."
  It therefore seemed to him that a discretionary power would still remain with the Secretary of State in this way. The word "shall" in the place of "may" would only require the Secretary of State to make such an order as, in his judgment, would be necessary to meet the necessities of the case; and, therefore, there was clearly a discretionary power to settle the amount within the very small sum fixed by the Act. Supposing, in the very improbable case that the circumstances were such as to induce the Secretary of State to make a small order, it was clearly within his power, under the clause, to make a very small order indeed. But, while that appeared to be perfectly reasonable, he understood that the Secretary of State undertook that this particular point should be reconsidered before the introduction of the next Continuation Bill. He had no doubt, in his own mind, that practically the Secretary of State did, under such circumstances, make an order, and that, therefore, the matter might safely be left to the Secretary of State for the present year after the discussion which had taken place, with the understanding that he would consider the propriety of making a change next Session. With regard to the other part of the Amend-

  749
  ment, he must say that, in its present form, it was quite impossible for the Committee to assent to it. If they were to allow a soldier stationed at a considerable distance, on an ex parte statement, to be brought up at his own cost to defend himself against such a claim, everyone would see that, under such circumstances, it would be altogether unfair to place the soldier altogether at the mercy of any woman who chose to prefer a charge against him. He believed there would be very great difficulty in altering the law in that respect; and, although he had every desire to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), if the hon. Member pressed that part of the Amendment to a division he should feel bound to vote against him. At the same time he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would carry out the intention which had been announced, and that he would deal with the matter on a future occasion.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, it had been his duty in former times, on several occasions, when this question was raised by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), whom he saw opposite, to consider it; and he hoped, therefore, that he might be allowed to say a few words. In regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he hardly agreed with the hon. Member that there was any material difference between the proposition of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and that which was formerly made by the hon. Member for Leicester. Before the new Army Act was passed, the law was administered under the Mutiny Act and under the Articles of War; and if hon. Members would read the provisions contained in those Acts together, they would find that they did not differ very materially from the present proposal. It was quite clear, therefore, that his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley was only anxious to find some salve to apply to his conscience for the vote he was about to give; and as it was not the first time that such a thing had been done, he presumed that his hon. Friend would follow his ordinary practice. He wished, however, to point out to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr.
  750
  Osborne Morgan had omitted to state one of the most material objections to the present proposal, and one which he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had always brought forward in times past. In his opinion it was the most material objection of all—namely, that if any provision of this kind became law, it would interfere with the well-recognized principle that the Crown had absolute power and command over the Army and over the soldiers' pay. No doubt, when the money was voted, the Crown could not apply it to its own use, or to any other purpose than paying the soldier; and as the soldier, who had the primary and original claim to that pay, could not proceed against the Crown or against the Secretary of State in regard to it, so it would be utterly impossible, and contrary to all reason, that secondary claims, such as that of a wife or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, should be allowed to prevail. Moreover, he could himself assure the hon. Member that when he held the position now occupied by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he took a great deal of trouble, by personal inquiry at the War Office, to ascertain whether any injustice whatever was committed towards these women; and the opinion of his right hon. and gallant Friend then at the head of the War Office (Colonel Stanley) was that, whenever there was the case of a wife not of a bad character, the War Office almost invariably made an order in her favour, without there being any necessity at all that she should take out a summons, or attempt by legal means to enforce her claim. That was certainly the case during the period he held the Office, and he had never heard any complaint of a substantial kind. Indeed, he had never heard of any complaint whatever. Therefore it seemed to him that when the system was working so well it was undesirable to interfere with it. He remembered that on a former occasion he was ruled out of Order for referring to a second Amendment before it had been proposed; and, therefore, he should be only right in adhering strictly to the Rules of Debate, especially at a time like the present, by reserving any observations on the second point raised by the hon. Member for Sligo. But he was bound to say that, if the existing power was enlarged in the manner proposed by the hon. Member,

  751
  it would, in his opinion, lead to a great deal of fraud on the part, not only of women, but of soldiers. The question raised by the hon. Member for Sligo was of considerable interest and importance, and one which it was highly desirable to have settled once for all; and, that being so, he thought the hon. Member was entitled to the thanks of the Committee for bringing the matter to an issue, and affording them the satisfaction of knowing what was the real opinion of the Members of Her Majesty's Government with regard to it. The reference which had been made by the hon. Member to a number of hon. Gentlemen who voted on a former occasion when the Bill was before the Committee he regarded as very interesting; and the point which it illustrated was, he thought, most important, as showing the opinions held by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches on the occasion referred to. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had himself looked into the list, and found that there were 13 Members of the present Government who voted with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) when he last proposed to amend this clause of the Act, and amongst them the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who voted on both divisions, and by his vote seemed to have dissented from the great Constitutional doctrine that the Crown had absolute command of the soldiers' pay. It was to be regretted that the hon. and learned Attorney General was not then in his place, because, otherwise, the Committee might have listened to a recantation of the opinion which he formerly held, and the reasons which induced him to alter his views. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would not take up the time of the Committee by referring in detail to the other Members of the Government who voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester, beyond mentioning that amongst them was one noble Lord who acted as Political Secretary to the Treasury, and another who otherwise assisted in that Department. With the exception of his noble Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was always sound in his doctrines and logical in his arguments,
  752
  there was no other Member of the present Government who voted against the Amendment. He trusted that the hon. Member for Sligo would proceed to a division, and that the result would show that Members of the Cabinet were united upon this question.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he thanked the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) for having brought forward his Amendments on the present occasion. He (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had himself taken great pains with the subject, and had brought forward a similar Amendment in previous years. He had not done so that year, because so many promises had been made on the subject by Ministers that he really believed the obnoxious clauses would be removed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General contended that it was always usual to place discretion in the hands of magistrates and other officers. But in this case discretion should only have relation to the fact. If the money was proved to be due from the soldier, it could not be within the discretion of the officer to say he should be exempted from its payment. From a Return which he had obtained, it appeared that in 1874 only £58 Os. 11 d. was paid under Clause 107 of the Mutiny Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was hardly correct in accounting for this by the small number of cases that arose, for it appeared by the same Return that 629 women, the wives of soldiers, and 1,241 young persons who were their children were in receipt of parochial relief, a fact which in itself was sufficient to show how difficult it was for women to get any effectual remedy. In the year 1837, a clause was inserted in the Mutiny Act, declaring absolutely the non-obligation of the soldier for the maintenance of his wife and children. But public attention became aroused, and was directed to the matter; and about the year 1872 the then Minister of War (Mr. Card-well) promised that the clause should be expunged. That was actually done; but the alteration was made in such a manner as to render utterly nugatory the nominal advantage which had been gained. He feared that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on those Benches were becoming very moderate in their liberality; and not only did things appear to move very slowly, but, from the argu-

  753
  ments which had been advanced on that side of the House, it would seem that they were likely to become retrogressive. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), for instance, now expressed the opinion that the second Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo went too far, and was unreasonable; yet that Amendment was identically the same that he had supported when he (Mr. P. A. Taylor) brought it forward some years ago, and its object was to repeal a qualification which Earl Cairns declared in the House of Lords rendered the provision absolutely nugatory. He (Mr. P. A. Taylor) should support the Motion of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sexton), who, he trusted, would proceed to a division.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had already expressed the opinion, on a former occasion, that this subject was well worthy of careful consideration by the Secretary of State for War. In his opinion, as at present advised, there ought to be some discretion given to the Secretary of State, who was responsible for the Army; but, notwithstanding that opinion, as he had before said, the subject was a very fair one for inquiry, and he could promise that it should be carefully looked into at the War Office, and the result stated to the House in the course of the year.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had met this matter in a spirit of courtesy and conciliation. Nevertheless, having regard to the many futile efforts that had been made to restore considerations of humanity to the Act, and the many pledges which had been given by right hon. Gentlemen formerly occupying the position of Secretary of State for War, he was obliged to confess that he regarded all promises made in connection with the Act with a considerable amount of apprehension. He certainly could not congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) upon the speech he had just delivered, in which he became the advocate of the Government in resisting the claims of women and children. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), on the other hand, had dealt with this matter as might have been expected; for they all knew that no Party considerations, or the mere fact that he now sat on the Ministerial side
  754
  of the House, could change the aspect of the case in his mind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had defended the discretion given to the Secretary of State for War on the ground that some discretion must be given; but he (Mr. Sexton) would point out that some discretion would still rest with the Secretary of State, even if his (Mr. Sexton's) Amendment were adopted. Was it just to say that because the magistrate had discretionary power, and because it had been exercised in favour of the applicant upon public grounds, another discretion having reference to military discipline must be likewise piled up upon the appeal of the woman? The discretion of the magistrate was relevant to the case; but that of the Secretary of State was not so. He proposed that the word "may" should be struck out and the word "shall" substituted. That proposal still left it to the discretion of the Secretary of State to fix the amount to be paid by the soldier. It did not say that he should order the payment of 6d. or of 3d. per day; it meant simply that the Secretary of State should do something; and he (Mr. Sexton) claimed that his discretion remained complete, inasmuch as he could, if necessary, cut down the amount to ¼d. For those reasons he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War not to allow the present opportunity to pass without taking some practical action in the matter. He was obliged to express his surprise that the hon. Member for Burnley should discover such a difference between the present Amendment and that which he supported two years ago. As a matter of fact, the Amendments were identical; and the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley was a proof of the inutility of opposing the principles of justice and humanity to the interests of Party in the House of Commons. Had the hon. Member still sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, he would, no doubt, have been the foremost champion of the cause, and would have described the wrongs of these unfortunate women and children in language sufficient to stir the hearts of the most fossil Tories. Although 13 Members of the present Government, when they were in Opposition, had voted for the amendment of the Act, they could now only oppose the charge of vagueness to this demand for

  755
  justice. The right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General defended the deposit of the soldiers' expenses on the ground that many cases were trumped up, and that the result of the summons was uncertain. But that applied to all charges, and it was impossible to say whether anybody was guilty or not until the case was finished. Were they to be told that because one dishonest woman in 100 might make a claim against a soldier, as wife or otherwise, for some contribution, 99 honest women were to be shut out from redress? With regard to the removal of soldiers before they became liable, he maintained that this shameful practice ought to be put an end to; that the Queen's Service could very well afford to do without the assistance of such men for a month or two; and that where a man had deserted a woman he should be kept in the country until his case was disposed of. In conclusion, he could not but express regret that the change from one side of the House to the other had wrought such an alteration in the opinions of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he was disposed to support the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in his endeavour to amend the Act. According to his reading of the section, it must appear, in the first place, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State for War that the soldier had deserted, or left without reasonable cause, his wife, or children under 14 years of age. It might seem a very small matter to retain the word "may" in the clause; but the word "shall" in this case would make all the difference, and its adoption would convey to a great many people who took an interest in the matter certain evidence that the House of Commons would act upon the view that justice should be an imperative demand upon the Secretary of State, to the full extent which the Act of Parliament allowed. For these reasons he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 116: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 63.)
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

SOUTH AFRICA (ZULULAND)—CETEWAYO (RELEASE FROM CAPTIVITY).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. GORST, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to release Cetewayo, the Zulu King, from the unjust captivity in which he is now held,"
  said, he felt quite sure that the Government would understand him when he stated that he did not bring forward this Motion with the intention of inaugurating any Party attack on the policy of the Government in South Africa, for on the question of the Zulu War he had always been a supporter of the present Government. He might even say that he believed there was no difference between the two great Parties in the State in reference to this policy, because neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Party would maintain the justice of the War which was waged against the Zulus. The late Government did everything to stop it, and refused the reinforcements which were asked for by Sir Bartle Frere for the purpose of commencing the War, aud sent him direct Instructions on the subject; but he was, unfortunately, so anxious to carry out his policy that he commenced the war before he had received the Instructions of Her Majesty's Government. There was no one in that House who would defend the celebrated Ultimatum which he sent to the Zulu King—an Ultimatum which, in the first place, he had no right to send; and, in the second place, one of which it was quite impossible to fulfil the conditions. Moreover, the Ultimatum did not reach the Zulu King before the War commenced, so as to allow him to fulfil the conditions of it, or even to consider it, though it had reached John Dunn; and there was no doubt that it was merely devised for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the philanthropic public at home. In the debate which took place in 1879 no one attempted to defend the justice of the war; and he did not think the position of the late Government could be better summed up than in the words of the right hon. Gen-

  757
  tleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). On the 23rd of January, 1879, that right hon. Gentleman, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, wrote to Sir Bartle Frere, saying—
  "The terms which we have dictated to the Zulu King are evidently such as he cannot refuse even at the risk of war."
  After such a statement as that no Minister could say that the War waged was just. He did not propose to trouble them with an argument to show that that War was unjust; but he thought he should be assisting the House to understand the present aspect of the question if he were to point out two fallacies which were asserted and generally received in 1879. The first was that the Zulu King, at the time of the War, had framed an intention to invade the Colony of Natal. The report of that intention created quite a panic in Natal, and he believed that almost every Native war had its origin in a senseless panic of that kind. It was a curious fact that the alarm was most intense at the greatest distance from the boundary. Sir Bartle Frere had stated that farms of the Dutch and English settlers on the boundary were deserted in consequence of fear of the Zulus. But there could be no doubt that the real cause of that desertion was want of water. That had been proved by a gentleman who was travelling in the country at the time, who had also shown conclusively that it was not the intention of the Zulu King to invade the Colony. Even after the disastrous battle of Isandlana Cetewayo had no intention of invading Natal, though, if he had done so, a most dreadful disaster would have befallen that Colony. The Zulu operations after that battle were limited to an attack upon Rorke's Drift; and even that attack was undertaken against the will and against the direct order of the King, who would have killed the leader of the force which made it had he not been a Prince. Everybody recollected the story of the waggoners, fugitives from Isandlana, who, having crossed the Buffalo River, fell exhausted on the Natal shore. The Zulus who pursued them followed them across the river, and were about to kill them, when their officers compelled them to retire, as the King had given no orders that Natal should be invaded. The fact was that there never had been any invasion of
  758
  the Colony of Natal until the 25th of June, when an attack was made on the Colony in retaliation for a great number of raids which had been made upon Zululand by the orders of Lord Chelmsford, and against the orders of Sir Henry Bulwer and of the Executive Council of Natal. All these facts were convincing proofs that it never had been the intention of the Zulu King to invade Natal. The second fallacy which the events of the Zulu War had entirely exploded was that the Zulu King was a cruel tyrant, who had so misgoverned his country that he was hated by his people, who wished to get rid of him. To show how utterly this idea was at variance with the truth he would refer to The Cape Times of September 11, 1879, in which it was stated that when the Zulu force was utterly broken and the King was a fugitive from the British force, which was hunting for him, not one of his people could be induced, either by fear of death, of the destruction of their homes, of the loss of their cattle, or by the offer of a large bribe, to disclose his hiding place. One Zulu, who appeared to have yielded to the inducements and the threats which had been held out to him, had led our forces into the bush, and had then given them the slip. These facts showed that, so far from hating their King and from regarding him as a cruel tyrant, the Zulus were devoted to him. What, then, was the position in which we now found ourselves? Here was a man who, according to the admissions of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had done no wrong in resisting our invasion of his country in the course of a war which had been denounced by the great Liberal Party as wholly unjust, and who was yet detained in a sad and melancholy—he would not say a cruel—captivity. Could hon. Members realize to themselves what this captivity meant to this man? He would take the liberty of giving some account of that captivity from the small book published by Lady Florence Dixie, and which was published in September last. The statement first appeared in the columns of The Morning Post anonymously; but everyone knew by whom it was written. When visited by Lady Florence Dixie, she remarked how changed he was; his features had assumed in repose a sad and constrained expression, while his face had become

  759
  wrinkled. It was said by those who were about him that he was fretting a good deal, and was subject to long fits of depression. "A little longer of this," he said, "and I shall die." He also said that his people wished to have him back in his land, where his heart was, that he was heart-sick and weary of waiting, and he asked—
  "When will England be just and let me return? Do they think that because I am a Black man I cannot feel, or that I suffer the less by this long and weary captivity P England has given the Transvaal back to the Boers, and Basutoland back to the Basutos, and all are free but me.…I am weary and sick at heart. I have applied to England, who, they tell me, is great and just, and I have applied to her Queen, who they tell me is merciful; but my prayer is unheeded."
  That was the position in which we kept a man, who, the Secretary of State for the Colonies said, was perfectly justified in what he had done. He had been asked what arguments he relied on in demanding the release of Cetewayo; but the presumption was all in favour of such a demand. He, however, contended that it was not his duty to show reasons why the King should be liberated; but that he ought to ask the Government what arguments they were going to put forward to show that he should be still kept in prison. He wished particularly to call attention to this point; and he would assert that it was for the Government to prove that it was necessary that the King should be kept in confinement. It was said that the release of Cetewayo would spoil the settlement which was come to of Zululand; but was that a good reason for his continued captivity? He did not quite recognize the morality of keeping a man in unjust captivity because he might interfere with a policy which was being pursued elsewhere. He had fancied, until the Papers on Zululand were placed in the hands of hon. Members, that some argument would be used, to the effect that in the present position of Zululand people should hesitate before letting loose a source of disturbance like Cetewayo. He had, therefore, read with interest and curiosity the Correspondence relating to the affairs of Zululand lately laid upon the Table of the House. At the same time, he would warn the House that those Blue Books were, in a great measure, untrustworthy, because they never contained the whole truth. He
  760
  did not attribute to the officers of the Government any intention of wilfully falsifying any statements which had been made; but in forwarding documents to the Colonial Office there was necessarily a selection made. In the selection nothing favourable to the Government was omitted; but sometimes those things which were unfavourable were left out, and the most favourable view was put before Parliament. Taking the Blue Book as an absolutely true statement of affairs as they were at present in Zululand, he would venture to say that if any man would read it through, separating the really important documents it contained from the mass of rubbish in which they were concealed, he would come to the conclusion that there existed in Zululand a most disgraceful and most alarming condition of barbarity and bloodshed, and that in the midst of that bloodshed the British Resident was absolutely incapable. Two or three particulars of facts, which would be found in the Blue Book, would show the condition in which Zululand was. He found that in two districts out of the 13 in which Zululand had been divided, there had been, from an early period, quarrels between the Chiefs appointed to rule over those districts and the inhabitants. It was singular that the malcontents and the disaffected against the Government were in the one case the man who had been Cetewayo's Chief Induna, or Prime Minister, and in the other case his brother, or half-brother. Those men appeared to have acted with such severity that even Sir Evelyn Wood appeared to have thought it was far beyond what ought to have been inflicted. In the despatch dated May 30th, 1881 (page 30), Mr. Osborne, the British Resident in Zululand, said, with reference to the punishment inflicted upon some of the malcontents, that he was certain the seizures, to the extent to which they had been made, were out of proportion to the gravity or nature of the offences for which the punishment had been inflicted. That was the sort of treatment to which the Chiefs whom we had established had been subjecting their fellow-creatures. In those two cases the High Commissioner, Sir Evelyn Wood, himself, had inquired into the history of the events, and. had decreed that the two Chiefs should restore one-third of the cattle which they had taken from the people.

  761
  Up to the present day that distinct judgment and order of Sir Evelyn "Wood had never been fulfilled by either of the two Chiefs in question; and one of the Chiefs, according to the Report of the British Resident, evidently did not intend to fulfil them. So much for the respect felt by the Chiefs towards the Government which had appointed them. Again, a stranger recently made his appearance in one of the districts in the character of a usurper. The Chief in possession abandoned, his territory to the new comer, and took refuge with John Dunn, who proposed to interfere in order to reinstate him. Both the Secretary of State in Downing Street and the High Commissioner peremptorily for bade John Dunn to interfere. Nevertheless, John Dunn collected an army and marched into the disputed territory, completely destroying the forces of the usurper, who had agreed to submit his claim to the decision of the Resident, and capturing a large number of women and cattle. Some women also, it appeared, were killed. All this, apparently, was done in defiance of official instructions to the contrary. A few days previously—that was to say, on July 25 of last year—John Dunn, it was true, had a conversation with the Resident, as the result of which the latter agreed to "advise" the other Chiefs to "assist" in ejecting the usurper. It would be interesting to know whether any record of that conversation had been sent to the Colonial Office. The presumption was that John Dunn flatly told the Resident he would not obey orders. At all events, two days afterwards, the Resident did advise the other Chiefs to act; and as no one had a force ready but John Dunn the work fell entirely to him, with what result they heard from the Natives sent by the Resident to watch the proceedings. Such of the captured women as had relatives to ransom them were allowed to be ransomed; the others remained the property of their captors. That was the sort of thing done under the protection of the British Government in Zululand! The cattle taken were mostly divided among the victors, a large number being appropriated by John Dunn himself. That was the story told by the messenger whom the Resident had sent, and who would naturally not make the situation worse than it was. Then he said that in the course
  762
  of conversation afterwards Dunn remarked that the people of Zululand would in future pay no regard to the Resident, because he only talked, and never did anything. Here, then, was the Chief Dunn, whom we had set up, deliberately despising the orders of the Government, marching into the disturbed territory, attacking the Chief, capturing women and cattle, distributing them as he liked among the people, and saying that the Resident was nobody. Was it surprising, then, that this man Dunn should announce his intention of annexing the territory and saying that the British Resident had ordered him to take charge of it? But that was not all. A traitor—one of Cetewayo's brothers—who had come over to us in the course of the War, and who was chosen as the Chief over one of the territories, attacked a neighbouring tribe against the distinct orders of the British Resident, and destroyed every male that could be laid hold of, and some women. A woman described what had been done. She said that the Chief arrived at the kraal at sunset, and seized the cattle. The women fled. When they had gone a certain distance they met three armed men, who at once charged towards them. The women ran, but were soon overtaken, and three of them were stabbed to death. Here was a Chief, under our protection, and who, but for our protection, would not have been able to do it, stabbing women to death. And now it appeared that the Boers were making a settlement in Zululand, and refusing to go away when directed to do so by the Resident of the British Government. On the 19th of September, 1881, two messengers came to the British Residency and said that they were sent by their Chief to inform the Resident that the Boers were located in his territory, and positively refused to go away in obedience to his orders. The Boers said if the Chief sent any more messengers ordering them away they would shoot them. The Boers had built three houses, and it was expected that more Boers would follow. Nor were the Boers without excuse. In a despatch written on the 16th of last January to the British Resident at Pretoria, the Boer Government said that in order to prevent further bloodshed and disorder in Zululand they begged Her Majesty's Government to release Cetewayo. They added that

  763
  a number of Zulus had been driven within their borders, and they could not force them back without exposing them to a bloody death. Here, then, we had the Government of the Transvaal, which we had reproached for its inhumanity, retorting the charge upon us, and pointing to the murders committed by a Chief whom Her Majesty's Government had placed in power. He had not half exhausted the description of disorder and bloodshed contained in the Blue Book; but he thought he had said enough to lead the House to question whether the present condition of Zululand was satisfactory. "What he wanted to point out was that the present condition of that country afforded no excuse for the detention of Cetewayo. If we left the people of Zululand to themselves, and washed our hands of any connection with the country, we might say that we were not in fault; but by keeping Cetewayo a captive we were interfering in the most positive manner with the affairs of Zululand. He did not enter into the question whether, if Cetewayo came back, he would be at once accepted by the people. If he had no following in the country, clearly no harm would be done by setting him free. But if his freedom would lead to his immediate restoration, then our keeping him in captivity was a manifest interference with the affairs of Zululand. There were two grounds upon which we might go. We might either wash our hands of the whole business, and then we should incur no responsibility; or, if we took responsibility upon ourselves, then we should put a stop to the effusion of blood that was going on. Let us either cease to interfere at all, or let our interference be such as would put an end to bloodshed and disorder. All our authorities were in favour either of restoring Cetewayo or of annexing Zululand to the British Crown. Lord Chelmsford said that the settlement we had made would be vain. Our Resident said it was necessary that Zululand should have one head. He pointed, probably, to annexation. Bishop Douglas and Mr. Robertson, while opposed to the restoration of Cetewayo, were in favour of annexation. He hoped Her Majesty's Government, if resolved to keep Cetewayo in captivity, would say why they did so. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. W. FOWLER, in seconding the Motion, said he wished to show by his action with regard to it that this was in no sense a Party question, but simply an act of justice. The real question they had to consider in connection with that matter was the one which the Zulu King himself had set forth in the remarkable letter that he wrote to the Queen, which no one could read without emotion, and in which he wished to know what he had done to justify his being imprisoned for so long a period. Now, he (Mr. W. Fowler) owned that he had never yet been able to answer that question satisfactorily. In the Blue Books he found a great many statements, but no evidence that Cetewayo had done anything to justify his imprisonment. Much depended on the way in which they viewed the character of that man, and on whether they thought he could be trusted or not. In a clear and admirable letter, written by the Dean of Maritzburg immediately after the War, speaking of the Zulus, the Dean said that they never went to war with us; that they had always been excellent neighbours; that Cetewayo had defended his country bravely and had committed no excesses; that the War had been ours, not his; that he had never overrun Natal, and had never shown any disposition to do so, and that we were stronger than we had been willing to allow. A great deal had been said about the military ambition of Cetewayo, and the only argument which Lord Chelmsford used in his recent letter to the papers against the restoration of Cetewayo was that we should have a restoration of the Army of Cetewayo, and that Army would be a standing menace to Natal and that part of South Africa. But what was it that had led largely to the military ambition of Cetewayo? It was our vacillation, and the vicinity and the action of the Boers. That was no fault of Cetewayo; he was very anxious in regard to the Boers; but he had never shown a disposition to attack us, nor did he attack the Boers, because we persuaded him not to do so. Therefore, with regard to military ambition, it was a strange argument to be used by European Powers. Why, they were in far more danger from the vicinity of France and Germany than from anything Cetewayo could do. It was said that Cetewayo was cruel and violent.

  765
  He had seen a great many anonymous statements to that effect, but no evidence. He was regarded as a firm Ruler, but not as a cruel one; and, in his letter, he said that the great complaint against him was that he was not half as firm as his father. All the evidence went to show that the people loved him as a Ruler, and looked upon him with the greatest possible affection, as was strikingly shown by the way in which they concealed him when he was attacked and pursued by our troops. Anything more miserable than the story of the way he was caught could not be conceived. An hon. Member sitting beside him (Mr. W. Fowler) had visited the country six years ago, and his impression was that it was very quiet and peaceable. Then, again, the man who was described as a savage had evinced remarkable forbearance in the hour of victory. After the battle of Isandlana, he might have swept Natal of every White man in the place; but he did not. And why was that? Because, as he told them, he did not feel himself an enemy of England, or want to quarrel with her, nor did he wish to destroy the White people. All through he had shown good faith to us, and even when he had the opportunity he did not use his power to punish or injure White people. As to the character of the King, there was one incident which should be mentioned. One of the officers who had the custody of Cetewayo was killed in the Transvaal War, and when the King heard of it he ate no food for a whole week, so much was he affected by the loss. His conduct as a prisoner, moreover, had been extremely dignified, and worthy of a man of far higher origin. The opinions they had heard from the Bishop of Natal, who had had great experience of the Native races, as to the character of Cetewayo, could be placed against those of Sir Bartle Frere, Sir Evelyn Wood, and others, who did not know him half so well. As regarded the settlement of the country, he fully appreciated the argument that it was unwise to unsettle a settlement. There were 13 Kings at present, instead of one, and if that really was a settlement, he should be very much disposed to hesitate before interfering with it. But was it a settlement? The hon. and learned Member opposite had shown that it was not, but only confu-
  766
  sion; and the Government might have expected confusion when they set up 13 persons in place of one. Last summer Sir Evelyn Wood had a meeting of the Chiefs, and shortly afterwards there were most serious disturbances, and the terrible massacre to which the hon. and learned Member opposite had referred. Great cruelty had been inflicted on those who desired to have the Zulu King back. In Zululand, under Cetewayo, there was, no doubt, a great Army; but the state of the country was one of comparative quiet. The King was not all that we might desire; but, at any rate, he did not interfere with us; and, although we professed to be very much afraid of him, the best evidence he could find was that the fear was needless. Sir Henry Bulwer said he did not consider there was the slightest ground for it. On the other hand, Lord Kimberley, in his Instructions to Sir Henry Bulwer on his new appointment, spoke in terms of entire dissatisfaction with the present state of things in Zululand. On that point he might read the following passage from a letter, dated October 27, 1881, from the Rev. E. Robertson, of Zululand:—
  "You have heard, no doubt, of the recent slaughter of the Abaqulusi. I am told that it was greater than that of Isandlana. I fear there will be more yet. In fact, I am expecting every day to hear that the Usutu (Cetewayo's own tribe) have broken out. Their patience has been sorely tried, and it needs just a little more provocation to bring about another crash. Maduna is strong enough to make mincemeat of Hamu and Zibebu any day. What he will end in doing I know not."
  If we relied on the different Kinglets we had set over the country we should rely on a broken reed. On the other hand, if we depended on Cetewayo, we should, at all events, depend on a King who had had universal authority over Zululand, and not on the half-breed Chief who had been placed over a large part of that territory, and who had applied to the Government to be made supreme Chief, an application which had been, happily, refused. It seemed that these Chiefs had broken all the conditions on which they entered into power. Two of those conditions were that they were not to go to war with each other, and that they were not to have guns. It was quite evident that John Dunn had guns. The Correspondent of The Daily News, writing from Maritzburg, stated that to leave things as they were

  767
  in Zululand was impossible; that the ultimate outcome of the present situation, unless something was done to cure it, was a combination between two or more of the most powerful Chiefs to exterminate the others; and there were only two ways out of the difficulty—either the country must be placed under British rule, according to Lord Kimberley's original intention, or Cetewayo must be sent back. He (Mr. W. Fowler) believed that if Cetewayo were permitted to return to Zululand the power of the other Chieftains would disappear like dew, and that he would be restored rapidly to full control over the country, for his character was such that if we placed him in power he would do right to his people. One great argument used by Lord Chelmsford was that if we restored Cetewayo there would be a danger of a renewal of the Zulu War. But if we restored him we could restore him on such conditions as would make it safe that nothing of the kind should occur. At present we had a Resident in Zululand, and we could have a Resident there then after restoring Cetewayo; and, at any rate, we might try to restore order through him. He saw an argument the other day that we must not put Zululand back again into the unmitigated barbarism in which it was under Cetewayo. He denied that there was unmitigated barbarism under Cetewayo. He believed that Cetewayo's rule was a remarkably mitigated barbarism, because it was a barbarism under the control of an eminently intelligent Ruler of remarkable powers, used, as far as he (Mr. W. Fowler) could discover, with judgment and discretion. They were told there was great danger of further unsettlement. He could not see how any unsettlement could be greater than the present one. Lord Kimberley fully admitted that in his despatch. He, further, did not believe there was anything in the argument that, as we had made an enemy of Cetewayo, it would be dangerous to release him, for Cetewayo not only was not vindictive, but had expressed his strong wish to be on friendly terms with England. Only a few months ago a gentleman in Cape Town went to see Cetewayo, who said that he had always been English, that his father had been English, that he (Cetewayo) was now more English than ever, for the English had spared his life, and
  768
  if the English restored him to power he would never fight against England. Cetewayo had felt the power of England, and he would not be the man to fight with her again. Another argument against Cetewayo's restoration to power was that we should have to make compensation to the existing Kings. He did not think that because the Government had that difficulty to get out of was a reason for keeping the King in captivity. It was our fault if the power had been given to men unfit to use it, and we must settle the matter in the best way possible. It was said that the public opinion of Natal would be very much against a restoration of Cetewayo. He had seen all sorts of statements on that question. Sir Garnet Wolseley, speaking of the public opinion of Natal, said, on the 13th of February, 1880—
  "Their desire is to annex Zululand to Her Majesty's South African Dominions, if not by a straightforward declaration to that effect, at least by imposing taxation on the Zulu people, by placing British magistrates in every district of the country, and by making Her Majesty's authority paramount."
  If that was the opinion of Natal, he did not think we should much regard it. There was another argument used against a restoration of Cetewayo to power, and that was that he was a nigger; but surely we ought to do justice to this man, whether he was black or white. There were, however, some English people who thought it was not of much consequence what happened to a nigger. He did not think that in modern history there were to be found more than two cases like this—one was the case of Napoleon, and the other that of Toussaint L'Ouverture. If Cetewayo could be trusted—as those who knew him well would testify—he ought no longer to be detained; and the Government should at once accede to all that was asked for on his account—namely, to liberate him, and to give to him the common rights of the commonest man. The more he had investigated this matter the more he was convinced there was no proof that this man deserved the great and cruel punishment that had been inflicted on him—a punishment that was more severe to him than it would be to an ordinary Englishman. The punishment was also severe because the Government had degraded him by turning him out of his Monarchy and putting him into a prison. He had done nothing against

  769
  this country, and he had asked what was the right of every man—namely, a trial; and if we did not release him within a reasonable time we should not only be doing him great injustice, but continuing a state of things which was a disgrace.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to release Cetewayo, the Zulu King, from the unjust captivity in which he is now held,"—(Mr. Gurst,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this question having been brought forward as an Amendment to the Motion that you do leave the Chair, we are not asked to meet the Motion of the hon. and learned Member by a direct negative. I am so far glad of that, because there is no reason why Her Majesty's Government should represent themselves as being at issue with him upon the question of principle relating to the matter which he has brought before the House. The contention I shall make is that the interference of the House in this matter would be entirely premature, and would lead to serious mischief; that the facts are not ripe for decision, even by the Government, much less are they ripe for decision by the interference of this House. One word as to the language used by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, which is to a certain extent sustained by the terms of this Motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman has moved that Cetewayo ought to be re-released from the unjust captivity in which he is held; and my hon. Friend who followed him has entreated us to release him from prison, and no longer to permit him to be locked up. I will not deny that Cetewayo is under restraint; it is, perhaps, questionable whether he is detained in captivity, but it is a complete inaccuracy to say that he is in prison, or that he is locked up. He has been placed upon parole within certain local limits—that is an exactly true description of his present condition. I do not intend to represent that fact as one of a light character; it is a fact of a
  770
  grave and serious character, but it is a different one from that which the case would present, if, as my hon. Friend supposes, he were locked up in prison. Let us consider the chief points which have been made in the two speeches we have heard. It has been truly said by the Mover of this Motion that this is no Party question. I frankly own that I am glad that such a strong sympathy with this individual does exist in this House, and that it is not confined to one side of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) has founded himself in some degree upon the injustice of the Zulu War, which, he says, is admitted by both sides of the House. I know not whether that is so, though I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman is, perhaps, a little precipitate in that assumption. At any rate, I am not here to dispute the justice or the injustice of the Zulu War, though I have seen no cause to alter my opinion upon that subject; but I do not wish to dwell upon it at this moment—first, because it tends to introduce into this discussion topics of difference which we are willing to avoid; and, secondly, because it is not the question. Whether the Zulu War was just or unjust is not and cannot be, in point of right, the governing consideration in our minds with respect to the course we are now taking with regard to Cetewayo. Our business is to be governed by the interests of South Africa, and especially of Zululand; and nothing will justify us in diverting our view from the question of what is best to be done in the present state of the facts, and in the present state of our information with reference to the interests of that country. The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that the War was unjust, and my answer is that, agreeing with him, I hold that that is not the point we have now before us, and that we must look to considerations of a different order. He has also dwelt very much upon another point, which I am not here to contest. If I were here to contest it, I should be speaking in entire contradiction to the despatches which have been sent out by the Government—namely, that the present condition of Zululand cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Though his description of the situation of the country as being that of anarchy and bloodshed is, perhaps, not perfectly accurate, yet that regular and suitable

  771
  government has not been established there is undeniable, and that the results of the Zulu War—quite apart from the question of its justice or injustice, in substituting the present state of things for the rule of Cetewayo—have been unfortunate is also, in my opinion, undeniable; but none of these questions are before us. The question before us is—"What is the best to be done for the permanent welfare of that country?" How does the hon. and learned Member meet that vitally essential point? He proposes to us this dilemma—either Cetewayo has no friends at all, and releasing him will thus do no mischief, because if he is released no one will care for him; or, possibly, the Zulus are longing for his restoration, and, in that case, his restoration is the best thing that could happen. I think it is impossible for anyone to contend that Cetewayo has no friends in that country. If it should finally appear that the mass of the people in Zululand are for Cetewayo, so that something like unanimity should prevail, so far from regarding him as an enemy of England and wishing him ill, and so far from being disposed to take anything but the most favourable course that the welfare of the country would permit, I should regard the proof of that fact with great pleasure; and that would be the sentiment of my Colleagues. But, besides those two propositions which have been put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, there is a third, which is much more probable than the proposition that Cetewayo has no friends, for that I hold to be entirely opposed to the evidence we have now before us. It is quite evident that he has friends; and that he is, or would be, a power in the country were lie free to take whatever measures he pleased, and to apply his own personal energies to the promotion of those measures. But, supposing, on the other hand, that, instead of an unanimous reception of Cetewayo, there should be a serious division of opinion, is it right for us, until we have taken every step in our power to obtain the best information and the best advice, to send Cetewayo into the country with the moral certainty we possess that he would be a power, and that if he were not the cause of pacification he would be a very serious cause of disturbance and bloodshed? Both the speeches we have heard tend
  772
  to rest upon an undeniable premiss—a conclusion which has nothing whatever to do with it. Both hon. Gentlemen say, justly enough, "You cannot represent this as a satisfactory settlement." No, Sir, we have not so represented it. They say the authorities are opposed to it. They are opposed to it; but they are not at all agreed upon the alternative to which we should resort. On the contrary, there is a most serious difference among the authorities as to the restoration of Cetewayo. We are not justified in setting aside the opinion of the authorities who are opposed to the restoration, at all events, until we have satisfied ourselves that we have done the best in our power to acquaint ourselves with the actual condition of facts. The hon. and learned Gentleman has most fairly admitted that there was this difference of opinion, and that there are those who hold that the annexation of Zululand to the British Empire is the proper course to be adopted. I, for one, hope that that may not prove to be the case; but I am not prepared to say that we should be warranted in taking a course which assumes a full knowledge of the facts, when the very Papers we have laid upon the Table demonstrate that neither we nor the House are in full possession of the facts. At the same time, it is a patent fact that we have done the best that in us lies to obtain the very best information in our power; we have sent to a neighbouring Colony a gentleman in whose judgment, ability, and impartiality we have entire confidence, and we have called upon him to lose no time in applying his mind to the consideration of the affairs of Zululand. We have just heard of his arrival, and in the course of a few weeks we hope to be in possession of his opinion. We look to him—as he is well entitled, from his great ability and experience, to be regarded—as a mediator between the opposing opinions that have been laid before us. My hon. Friend who has just sat down made very light of the question, whether or not we are under any obligations to the 13 Chiefs who are now in actual or nominal possession of Zululand. But, Sir, these obligations are not to be got rid of—at all events, without something like definite evidence as to the unfaithfulness or the incapacity of those Chiefs. I admit that two cases have been quoted; but it would be ab-

  773
  surd to say that those 13 men are to be condemned because two of them have proved unfaithful to their Government. It may be that the others are unfaithful; but we have not such distinct and detailed evidence and responsible judgment upon that point as is absolutely necessary to warrant us in coming to a conclusion. I may point out that the Motion is incomplete as well as premature. It puts one alternative before us; but it may be our duty to do more than release Cetewayo. To release him is simply to renounce all responsibility in the matter, and to leave him to do what he can towards establishing himself or towards disturbing the country, and to wash our hands of the affair. I doubt whether we have the right, in the present state of our information, to take that course; but it is quite possible that we may find the state of facts to be such that we may find it to be our duty to release Cetewayo, and do something more—to give him the moral support of this country in replacing him in his position. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has indicated that there are serious difficulties in this matter. He admits that great objections have been taken to the idea of a restoration of Cetewayo and his army. He says that we ought to release him and put him back; but put him back upon conditions—upon condition that he will not restore his military organization. My hon. Friend asks us to take this step without evidence from our own responsible authorities in the country. I say it would be a very grave resolution, indeed, to arrive at to bind ourselves to the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend—an opinion to which I do not object, but which I say is premature. We are asked to determine to release Cetewayo upon condition that he will not reinstate his military organization, and if that condition is broken we are to tell him that we shall invade his country again. I do think my hon. Friend, upon consideration, will see that we are not asking too much in begging him to refrain from pledging the House on the present occasion in a manner which would be precipitate, and might be dangerous to a definite opinion on the subject. Suppose the House gave a judgment adverse to Cetewayo. I am glad to say that a vote against the Motion would, in its nature, be more a vote for the Previous Question than a
  774
  vote adverse to Cetewayo; but in the country it would be taken as a vote adverse to Cetewayo. I should, however, be very sorry that any vote adverse to Cetewayo should be placed upon record in this House. I should regret any vote which would hamper us in giving scope, should we find facts to justify it, to the views entertained by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and which, I believe, would be found almost universal in this House. But, at the same time, if I were to contemplate an arrival at a vote in favour of the Motion which has just been made, I cannot anticipate any advantage from such a result. But suppose the Motion is carried, and the release takes place, I do not see that there would be any relief from the responsibility which we have already incurred. On the contrary, I think there would be a serious addition to that responsibility. But it will be urged that we are asked to decide in favour of non-interference, and are not asked to commit ourselves to a fresh policy. But I answer, we are dealing with facts as they are; we are dealing with a state of facts in which the essential circumstances are that Cetewayo is under restraint, and that an alternative system has been established in Zululand. No doubt, that system is unsatisfactory; but we are endeavouring to get at the best information and the best mode of dealing with the case. Under these circumstances, and before we know the best mode of dealing with it, to release Cetewayo, and allow to pass into Zululand one whose presence there might entirely fail in recalling the people to their allegiance—and if it did so fail, it would be a new cause of political disturbance and an extensive shedding of human blood—that is not a course which the House can wisely or justly be called upon to take. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go further into this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he declined to inquire whether Cetewayo would be accepted by his people as King or not. If he declines that inquiry, I beg him to go a little further, and not vote for his own Motion; for he certainly ought not to vote for his own Motion unless he has satisfied himself as to that inquiry. If he believes, upon evidence which we do not find sufficient, that Cetewayo will be accepted, he may consistently proceed

  775
  with his Motion. But he declines to face that question. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) says he will be accepted as King; but then my hon. Friend thinks himself in possession of evidence which Lord Kimberley does not find himself in possession of. My hon. Friend says it is difficult to find out the sentiments of the people, but yet that they would accept Cetewayo. My hon. Friend's convictions are a matter of great importance to himself undoubtedly, and ought to have great weight with this House. But until we are happy enough to arrive at similar convictions the Government will not be justified in taking measures for putting such convictions into effect. I venture to hope that upon information of this kind we shall not be called upon to exhibit a variety of opinion which can do no good, and may do very serious evil, and which, at any rate, would lead to the opinion that we are substantially divided upon matters as to which I was sanguine enough to hope there was a general agreement. I do not question—although I think my hon. Friend has a little exaggerated in his statements about the condition of Zululand—that the new settlement has done nothing as yet towards making good its title to our approval. I may refer to the despatch of my noble Friend to Sir Henry Bulwer of the 2nd of February, in which my noble Friend carefully and elaborately set out the various alternatives which were open to us, and suggested inquiries conceived in the largest sense into the entire subject. That course of inquiry is one that has, I have no doubt, by this time been put in force, and I hope that no long time will elapse before we shall probe the matter to the bottom, so far as it admits of being so probed. Then will be the time when we shall be in a condition to arrive at a judgment, and to act upon that judgment; and I assure the hon. Member and the House that they have not the slightest reason to fear that when that time arrives we shall approach the subject under the influence of any adverse prejudice towards the person on whose behalf he is so full of benevolent and patriotic intentions. It is impossible to think of the situation of Cetewayo without commiseration. Without any desire to resuscitate the debates of three years ago, I may say that the public opinion of the country is that
  776
  Cetewayo has claims upon our consideration. But, on the other hand, it must be remembered that the peace and welfare of the country ought to be the dominant consideration. We hope that the interests of Zululand itself will lead in the same direction as the sympathy which we must all feel for one who has suffered so much. At all events, the spirit in which we shall approach the decision of the question will be one of which we are sure that the House will have no disposition and no cause to complain, and the time at which we shall be able to approach it is, we trust, very near at hand.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that there was a great deal in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) with which he agreed. This was no Party question. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that in 1879, in the debate on the Zulu War, he (Sir Henry Holland) had felt himself compelled to differ from the opinion of, perhaps, the majority of those with whom he ordinarily acted, and that he had denounced the war as unjust and unnecessary. He would not now take up the time of the House by a re-statement of all the reasons upon which he arrived at that conclusion, because, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the question of the justice or injustice of the Zulu War was not directly before the House; but he would briefly refer to one principal reason, as throwing some light upon the conduct and character of Cetewayo, which formed an important element in the consideration of the question now before the House. He showed in that debate, from a careful examination of all the proceedings of Cetewayo from the time he succeeded Panda, that, with the exception of sudden outbursts of temper, Cetewayo had been uniformly friendly to the British nation. He constantly sought the assistance and advice of the Lieutenant Governor of Natal and of Sir Theophilus Shepstone; and he did what many who sought advice did not do—he almost invariably took that advice, though often very unpalatable to him. Thus, he over and over again, in conformity with the advice and wishes of the Lieutenant Governor, restrained his own strong desire, and that of his Chiefs, to attack the Boers and other neighbouring Tribes. He (Sir Henry Holland) urged, as a proof of this view, that Cetewayo did not invade

  777
  Natal when it was denuded of troops, and when we were engaged in the troubles of the Transkei War; and this at a time when we were asked to believe that he was bitterly hostile to us. He (Sir Henry Holland) desired to express his entire concurrence in the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as to the treatment of Cetewayo shortly before war was declared. There was no doubt that for some months before the war Cetewayo was irritated at the apparent unfairness of the English Government in not settling the boundaries between Zululand and the Transvaal. That irritation was not unreasonable, for he (Sir Henry Holland) felt bound to admit that the final settlement was unduly delayed; and it was not unnatural that Cetewayo should believe that, after we had annexed the Transvaal, we did not care to decide the matter. Again, there was no doubt that Cetewayo was alarmed and uneasy at the movement of troops towards the Natal Frontier—a movement which Sir Henry Bulwer had strongly deprecated as likely to cause that very alarm and uneasiness which it did, in fact, create in the minds of Cetewayo and of his Chiefs. But that irritation and uneasiness could have been removed by the exercise of a little tact and judgment. There was a fair opportunity for doing this when the award, by which the boundaries were defined, was sent to Cetewayo. But what was done? Instead of sending that award as a message of peace, untrammelled by any conditions, conditions were attached to it which were unfair and unreasonable. And more than this. With the award was sent an ultimatum, with the terms of which it was impossible for Cetewayo to comply. Acceptance of those terms would have amounted to an extinction of Zulu government and power, and to the practical dethronement of himself. It followed, from what he (Sir Henry Holland) had said, that he regretted the necessity—perhaps unavoidable after war, however unjust, had commenced—of taking Cetewayo prisoner, and of detaining him as a prisoner of war. It was only just to the Cape Government to say that, acting in accordance with the wishes of the Imperial Government, they had done all they could to alleviate his captivity and
  778
  to make it as little irksome as possible; and he should be glad to learn that any further alleviation could be granted, or any restrictions removed, consistently with Cetewayo's remaining in the Cape Colony. But the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham advocated an immediate release without any conditions; and both his speech and that of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) pointed to the desirability of his being restored to Zululand. Now, he (Sir Henry Holland) was certainly not prepared to take any step towards restoring Cetewayo to Zululand, or even towards settling him upon any location near Zululand. Whether, after the conclusion of the war, Cetewayo might have been left as paramount Chief under certain conditions, and with limitations of his power, he would not now stop to inquire. But the House was now asked to forma judgment upon a totally different state of things. Zululand had been partitioned out among certain Chiefs, and solemn engagements had been entered into with those Chiefs, which would be most flagrantly broken if Her Majesty's Government were of their own free will to allow Cetewayo to return to power in that country. The whole nature of the arrangement was inconsistent with such return; and, if not in express terms, they had impliedly bound themselves not to adopt such a policy. It had been contended that the present state of Zululand was deplorable. Without accepting all the reports—many made by Natives on hearsay—as to the state of things in that country, he would admit it to be probable that the arrangement made at the conclusion of the war had not worked in an altogether satisfactory manner, and that acts of bloodshed and cruelty had been perpetrated; but sufficient time had not yet elapsed to satisfy us that, with modifications, that arrangement might not practically work well. If the state of things described by the hon. and learned Member continued, it would undoubtedly be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to interfere and put an end to it—by deposing those Chiefs who behaved in this outrageous manner; by strengthening the hands of the British Resident; and by appointing, if necessary, more Residents and Magistrates. But how would the state of Zululand be improved by the return of

  779
  Cetewayo? He would ask the House to consider in what capacity Cetewayo could be restored. Was he to go back as paramount Chief? This would be a clear and distinct breach of our engagements with the Chiefs, by which we had vested in them certain denned powers. It appeared to him that Cetewayo could only be so restored at the unanimous desire and request of all the Chiefs—a contingency which had not happened, and he thought was not very likely to happen for some years to come, if at all. Was Cetewayo, then, to return as a subordinate Chief, and to have a district allotted to him? In the first place, no district was vacant, and we could not, consistently with our engagements, now insist upon a forced sub-division of a district for the purpose of fixing Cetewayo there. And even if there were a vacancy, he questioned whether we could properly appoint Cetewayo to such vacancy. He was not sure whether, under the arrangement made at the conclusion of the war, a Chief had the right to appoint his successor, or whether such right was vested in the people of the district; but such right, whether vested in the Chief or people, would be infringed by the forced appointment of Cetewayo to fill the vacancy. And, further, he would ask the House to consider whether it would not be highly undesirable to place Cetewayo in a position of equality with Chiefs over whom he so lately ruled? If, then, it would be dangerous to restore him as paramount Chief, or as a subordinate Chief, would it be less dangerous to allow him to go back and settle there as a private individual? It would be very difficult to prevent him from plotting to regain power if he were so inclined. There were now in Zululand many members of his family and household, and many who held high position under him when in power, who were disaffected, and would gladly assist him to regain that power, by which they would profit. Here would be one source of danger. But assuming that he would not be inclined to intrigue for power, would not his mere presence in the country tend to intensify any quarrel that might arise between two Chiefs, and to increase any disaffection or ill-feeling that might arise between any Chief and his followers? He (Sir Henry Holland) would have hesitated to have pressed so strongly this opposition to Cetewayo's return to Zululand
  780
  had this view been only held by himself. But he must remind the House that the people of Natal had most strongly protested against Cetewayo's restoration; and great attention should be paid to that opinion, as the people of that Colony were most deeply interested in the welfare of Zululand, and would be most directly affected by disturbances there. He had within the last week also had the opportunity of seeing a letter from John Dunn, in which the danger of allowing Cetewayo to return was most strongly pressed. Of course, it would be said that John Dunn was an interested party. That was true, but that very interest made him alive to the danger; and whatever might be alleged of John Dunn, no one could deny that he was a very shrewd observer, and that he knew the Zulu Natives better, probably, than anyone else in South Africa. As he had mentioned the name of John Dunn, he would venture to say a few words on behalf of a man to whom he thought scant justice had been done, and who certainly had been assailed that evening in very strong language. John Dunn rendered most loyal and important services to the British after the war broke out. Without those services our success must have been delayed, the war must have been prolonged, and many valuable lives must have been lost. Upon this point he might, without hesitation, refer to the evidence of Lord Chelmsford, Major General Crealock, and Sir Garnet Wolseley, and others in command. John Dunn had been accused of treachery to Cetewayo; but he was at a loss to see upon what grounds. Before the war John Dunn had used all his great influence with Cetewayo to prevent that war. When the war was imminent, or just after it was declared, Cetewayo informed John Dunn that he was unable to protect him, and, therefore, he crossed the Frontier with the full knowledge of Cetewayo, and quite openly, Since the conclusion of the war John Dunn had governed his district with great ability and judgment. He had passed Liquor Laws to prevent the introduction of spirits into his district; he had facilitated and improved the administration of justice; and had introduced a simple and effective Criminal Code based on the Native Laws. Not only this, but he interfered most usefully when a quarrel broke out be-

  781
  tween two Chiefs; he localized that quarrel, and prevented a general disturbance. Upon this point they had the high testimony of Sir Evelyn Wood. Returning again to the question before the House, he (Sir Henry Holland) desired to state one more reason which should make the House pause before passing a Resolution in favour of Cetewayo's return to Zululand. They must consider the character of Cetewayo. Now, no doubt, since he had been in captivity, he had given expression to many dignified and humane sentiments, though he (Sir Henry Holland) could not help thinking that the reports of his speeches were some what highly coloured, and he had certainly impressed a great many people in his favour. But dignity in captivity was quite consistent with cruelty when in power. There could be no question that Cetewayo was cruel when in power, and that by his acts he had alienated many of his followers. Had those who now so highly praised him forgotten that in 1876 he coolly put to death a very large number of innocent young persons and children, and thus drew down upon himself the indignant and strong remonstrances and rebukes of Sir Henry Bulwer. And this act he committed in distinct contravention of most solemn promises which he openly made with Sir Theophilus Shepstone and the Zulu people, when he was proclaimed King. When remonstrated with, he replied by a letter, in which he said that he would kill—that it was the custom of his nation, and that his people would not listen to him unless he killed.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was not a letter, but a message.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: At all events, those were the actual words of the Chief who delivered the message, and they were never denied by Cetewayo. Indeed, the only defence raised for them was one raised in this House by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James), in 1879, that they were attributable to rum, or a sudden outburst of temper. He would ask the House to consider what security we could have against a return of like acts of cruelty if we replaced Cetewayo as paramount Chief. In conclusion, he would ask the House to allow him to refer to one matter, very directly bearing upon the question before the House, but to which no allusion had been made. A few days
  782
  before the House rose, the Under Secretary of the Colonies, in reply to a question put by him (Sir Henry Holland), announced that Her Majesty's Government had decided to bring Cetewayo over to this country. Now he for one, trusted that Her Majesty's Government would reconsider that decision. He could not see what possible good could arise from Cetewayo's coming here; unless, indeed, it was decided that he should be restored to Zululand. In that case, it would be desirable that he should go back fully impressed with a sense of the greatness, of the power, and of the resources of England. It was, doubtless, for this reason that, in 1731, Governor Oglethorpe brought over from the newly-founded Colony of Georgia several Creek Indian Chiefs, whom he took back with him after their visit here. And the address of the head Chief, when presented to the King, George II., showed that he thoroughly understood the position and force of the reason. The Chief was reported to have said—
  "This day I see the majesty of your face, the greatness of your house, and the number of your people. I am come in my old days. Though I cannot expect any advantage to myself, I am come for the good of the children of all the Natives of the Lower and Upper Creeks, that they may he instructed in the knowledge of the English and of their power. O great King, whatever word you shall say unto me, I will on my return faithfully tell them to all the Kings of the Creek Natives."
  But what good would be gained by impressing his mind with a sense of the greatness of this country, unless he was to return to Zululand—a step which he trusted he had convinced the House would be highly inexpedient? It had, indeed, been urged that he should be allowed to plead his own cause here in England. But with whom was he to plead it? With Her Majesty's Government, or with the people of England? Surely not with the former. The Government knew all the bearings of the case, and were not likely to alter their views upon it by seeing Cetewayo in person. Was he to plead with the people at public meetings? Those who were already interested in his case had full knowledge of it from the Papers presented to Parliament, and from the very full reports of the many interviews that he had had at the Cape, and they could gain no further information by statements made in public through an interpreter. As to

  783
  the rest of the public, they would, no doubt, rush to see him, as they would to see Jumbo, or any other unusual sight; but what weight would their opinion, if favourable to Cetewayo, have with the Government, seeing that they had not studied the rights of the case, and merely taken his statements without testing their force or accuracy? If, indeed, Cetewayo had signified any desire to settle down in this country, the case would be different; and, he (Sir Henry Holland), believing as he did, that the war was unjust and that his detention was to be regretted though unavoidable, would be disposed to meet his wishes in every way. But he was not aware that Cetewayo had ever expressed any such desire, and the Government had not put it forward as a ground for their decision. He should, therefore, feel bound to oppose the bringing over of Cetewayo to this country, because no good could come of it, unless Cetewayo were to be restored to Zululand, which he thought would be a course fraught with danger, and inconsistent with the engagements we entered into at the conclusion of the war. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Chatham would not press the Resolution to a division; but if he did, he (Sir Henry Holland) would be obliged to vote against it.
  MR. GORSTsaid, it would, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House if he said at once that, after the very satisfactory statement which had been made by the Prime Minister, he had no desire whatever to do other than follow the advice which the right hon. Gentleman had given on this occasion, regarding him as his Leader in this matter. If the House would allow him to follow the right hon. Gentleman's advice, he would be most happy to do so.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, that, after the speech of the Prime Minister, there remained very little for a friend of Cetewayo to say in this House, and he would only allude to one particular point. Having very recently returned from South Africa, he would say a few words upon the local public opinion on this matter, and he would deprecate its being misunderstood in any way by Her Majesty's Government, who had yet to form a final opinion on this important question. If they went to Cape Colony, they would find that the Cape Colonists considered themselves to
  784
  be a good way off from Zululand, and that they did not take a very keen or practical interest in Zulu affairs. In fact, if Cetewayo himself did not happen to be a captive within their limits, he thought they would take very little interest in the question at all; and as far as he could gather public opinion there, it was very much divided. Some said, "Oh, he had better go back to his own country;" and others seemed to think he should be retained in prison. But when they came to those countries which were nearer to Zululand, and which were, therefore, more closely interested, they found opinion among the public at large to be very definitely felt and expressed. To begin with the Transvaal Boers; it was evident that they, so far as they had expressed themselves through their Government and Rpresentatives, were in favour of the return of Cetewayo, not merely of his release, but of his restoration, and the ground they put it upon was, that it would be a pacific and peaceful solution of the difficulty. In Natal opinion was somewhat different. While he was in Natal a large public meeting was held at Durban to discuss the question of the restoration of Cetewayo. No doubt, by a large majority it was decided that it would be dangerous to the prosperity of Natal if Cetewayo were restored; but the meeting was not unanimous, and it had been undoubtedly brought together by the un-friends of Cetewayo, and those whom he might call, perhaps, the friends of John Dunn. Apart from this, he would point out that the public opinion of meetings such as that held at Durban ought not greatly to influence Her Majesty's Government or the decision of this House. Meetings in such a place as Durban upon general political questions would be as worthy of respect and attention, and perhaps more so, than any meetings held in a town of the same size in this country. There was an intelligent and an educated public opinion, no doubt; but if they came to ask how much those gentlemen who attended a meeting of that sort knew about the Zulus, they would find that their knowledge was probably limited to acquaintance with a few who had come to seek service in the town. Not one in 500 of them knew anything of the Zulu language, of the Zulu people, or of their country. If they consulted those few, the

  785
  select few, who had travelled through Zululand, who were familiar with the language, and had obtained a certain amount of the confidence of the people, they would certainly find that opinions differed even there. No doubt many missionaries, who were well entitled to speak, deprecated the return of the King; but against that he would set the opinions of many others—he should think, on the whole, the majority—though, as to that, he was perhaps not able to speak with confidence—the opinion of many others that the return and the full restoration—because he did not think the mere release of the King would be a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter—that the restoration of Cetewayo would tend to the pacification of the country. It ought to be borne in mind that war, as it had hitherto been conducted in Natal, had no great terrors for the Colonists—indeed, the palmiest days of Natal were during the late Zulu War. Enormous sums of Imperial money were spent there. Everybody who had anything to sell got about double price for it. Spirited and energetic young men found good pay and employment as Volunteers; and he would venture to assert that a war which would result in the annexation of Zululand would be an exceedingly popular war now in Natal. Therefore, he would not infer from the fact that the population of Natal deprecated Cetewayo's restoration that on that ground they greatly dreaded a war. Then, as had been justly said by an hon. Member opposite (Sir Henry Holland), the Chief John Dunn was one of those who thoroughly understood the affairs of Zululand. He could not tell with certainty what John Dunn's opinion was as to his probable position were the rightful Monarch to return. He only knew that he had been taking measures to put a certain amount of his property beyond the reach of danger. While he was in the Colony, it was believed that John Dunn had brought on one occasion £5,000 to place in the bank at Durban. He certainly had brought a large sum of money. He would only infer from that that he did not consider his position there a very secure or permanent one; and, from all that he had been able to learn from those who knew the Zulus best, whatever other matters might be in doubt, there seemed to be no doubt whatever of
  786
  the steadfast devotion of the great bulk of the Zulu community to their former King; and it was more than probable that a great number of the present Chiefs would at once resign their authority into his hands if he were to return with the moral support of this country. The difficulty with some of them, no doubt, would be that they were not Zulus—one was a Basuto, and another was, as they well knew, a Scotchman. He was inclined to think that in their case it was only just to give a certain amount of compensation. If two or three of them were compensated, he believed the others would willingly accept Cetewayo. He was only making these remarks because he had had some means of ascertaining what the local opinion was; and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government, in making up their minds, would accept these expressions of public meetings with some caution, and that, in finding out what the real truth was, they should only consult those who spoke the Zulu language, and were familiar with the country.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he also had been to South Africa, and could confirm the remarks of the hon. Baronet. In the Blue Book issued before the House rose for the Holidays there was a reference to a despatch to the British Resident at Pretoria. He wished to ask whether that despatch could be laid on the Table of the House? He listened with gratification to the remarks which fell from the Prime Minister. He thought the course recommended was the best they could pursue. He was glad to hear the Prime Minister speak with a kindly feeling towards the unfortunate Monarch. He hoped the Government would take his case into their consideration. It seemed to him that there were only three courses to adopt in dealing with Zululand. They could restore Cetewayo. They could adopt the suggestion advocated by John Dunn, and nominate him paramount Chief or King of Zululand. They could adopt the plan advocated by Mr. Osborne, our Resident Minister, and annex the country. He thought they might dismiss the last-named course, although it was advocated by so high an authority. He did not apprehend that the Government were prepared to annex Zululand. That course had been repudiated by the late Government, he believed; and it had

  787
  been equally repudiated by the present Government. If submitted to that House, he was convinced it would meet with little support. A point had been made with regard to the justice due to the 13 Kinglets established by Sir Garnet Wolseley. It appeared to him, after a perusal of the Papers, that the settlement of Sir Garnet Wolseley had completely broken down. The setting up of these 13 Kinglets had turned out a great mistake. To introduce anarchy into the country was unworthy of England, of its honour and its name. The principle of the present system must come to an end. It was evident that John Dunn thought that the best course would be to appoint him paramount Chief—in other words, King. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) strongly deprecated making John Dunn paramount Chief. Whatever were Cetewayo's faults, he preferred a native Zulu to a renegade Englishman or Scotchman—for he understood the hon. Gentleman (Sir David Wedderburn) claimed John Dunn as a Scotchman. At all events, he preferred Cetewayo to a renegade Britisher—a man who had renounced the virtues of civilization. He thought the best proof of Cetewayo's friendly disposition towards England, and the absence of any intention on his part to invade our Colony, was the fact of his abstaining from any attempt at attack when Natal lay at his mercy after the battle of Isandula. He had heard many stories in Natal of how Lord Chelmsford frightened the Colonists by leaving his Army after Isandula, and coming down to superintend the fortification of Maritzburg and Durban. But, whatever the faults of Cetewayo were, he acted on the principle of defending his own country. Cetewayo informed him, at an interview he had with him, that be and his family wished to maintain friendly relations with England. Those relations commenced some 50 years ago, when his Predecessor rescued a British ship on the Coast of Natal. His hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) deprecated bringing Cetewayo to this country. He could not agree with him. Considering the injustice which had been done to the unfortunate man, it was only right that they should accede to his wishes, and give him an opportunity of laying his Petition before the Queen and Government of this country. By bringing Cetewayo over to this
  788
  country, the Government would pursue a wise course, and he hoped it would be carried out. The best course, in his opinion, would be the restoration of this unfortunate Prince to his native country, and then they would get rid of the anarchy which at present prevailed there.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

FIRES IN THEATRES (PREVENTION).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND, in rising to move—
  "That in view of the great danger to the Theatre-going public from the insufficiency of powers under existing Acts relating to Theatres, and the laxity with which such powers, conferred by various Acts of Parliament, have been exercised, and that any day, unless some steps are taken to insure proper exits and necessary appliances against fire, a calamity may happen which may cause as terrific a loss of life as that which lately occurred at the Ring Theatre at Vienna, a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the state of the exits and what appliances exist for the prevention or extinction of fires in Theatres and Music Halls, and to report the result of their investigations and recommendations thereon,"
  said, that the frightful calamity which occurred at Vienna, by which 700 lives were sacrificed, succeeding the catastrophe at Nice, where 300 lives were lost, naturally led him to consider whether the theatres of England were liable to these calamities from fire. In looking into the subject he found, so far as London alone was concerned, that there were 472 places of amusement. The great difficulty in dealing with the subject consisted in the conflicting jurisdictions in which they were placed. They had first the Crown, under which there were two Patent theatres, holding about 8,000 persons; secondly, they had the Lord Chamberlain, who had under him 45 theatres, holding 80,000 persons; thirdly, they had the Divisional Magistrates, with 10 theatres, holding 31,800; fourthly, the Middlesex Magistrates, with 347 music halls, holding 136,700; fifthly, they had the Surrey Magistrates, with 61 music halls, holding 32,800 persons; sixthly, they had the City of London Magistrates, with two music halls, holding 1,400 persons; and, lastly, they had five unlicensed places of amusement, holding about 5,000—making 472 places of amusement, holding about 300,000 persons. They had no less than

  789
  six different jurisdictions, and, to make the confusion even worse confounded, there was the authority of the Metropolitan Board of Works overriding some of these authorities, and another authority—that of the Home Secretary—was also brought in. He thought it was perfectly scandalous that the law should be in such a state that even the authorities themselves probably did not know their own powers, and that one authority could be pitted against another, and all put at defiance by anybody whose interest it was to do so. As he said, 300,000 people could be accommodated in these places of amusement, and probably on Saturday and Monday nights this number was nearly reached. The subject was one, therefore, which concerned a large class of Her Majesty's subjects. To bring the matter practically before the House, he might say that it concerned 1,500,000 of the people of London alone each week. He thought it was shameful that people should be allowed to go to our theatres, not only unprotected, but without the slightest knowledge of the risks which they ran. He had asked the Home Secretary, in view of the great danger to which the public were exposed, owing to the inadequacy of protection against fires in theatres and music halls, whether he would introduce a Bill dealing with the matter? The Home Secretary had replied that special legislation had taken place in 1878, and that the Board of Works had power to deal with the old and new theatres. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had been astonished at the answer; because, if he had read the Act of 1878 aright, the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works were insufficient to deal with the old theatres. He had then, again, turned to the Act, and had found that the only part of it which dealt with the old theatres was in Section 11. There it said that where a theatre was so defective in its construction as to be dangerous to the public, the Board might order the defeets to be remedied, provided it could be done at a moderate expense. Therefore, the greater the risk the greater the difficulty of providing against it, for where the risk was great the structure must be very defective, and the cost of improving it consequently large; and the Board only had power to interfere when the expense incurred would be
  790
  moderate. It seemed to him that this principle set the interests of the owners and managers above the safety of the public; and this at a time when the occupation was most lucrative—when new theatres were being opened every day, and when the public were paying a larger sum for admission to them than had ever been known before. The prices of admission to the stalls had been raised from 5s. to 10 s. 6d. To be sure he (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had made no mistake, he had next questioned the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works as to his powers, and the answer of the hon. Gentleman, however much he might decline to admit it, satisfied every reasonable person that his Board could be put at defiance, and structural defects could only be required to be remedied if they could be done at a moderate expense. On receiving that admission, which, in his (Mr. Dixon-Hartland's) opinion, was an admission that the Board had no powers, he had, on January 16, again questioned the Home Secretary on the subject, and from the answer given he had been satisfied that the Home Secretary was not satisfied with the powers which he possessed. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that neither he nor any other authority had power to close any theatre, however dangerous to the public. He only hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not have the misfortune to be in a London theatre if it should happen to catch fire, else he was afraid that he should never have the honour of receiving an answer from him on the question he was then referring to, or upon any other question. The Board of Works was a body which had shown a great public spirit, and had done a great deal of work of great public merit. But it was also a body very jealous of its authority and whenever it had any power to take steps it took them. Therefore, he (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) wished to know why they had not taken action upon the provisions of the Act of 1878 if they had not been perfectly aware that the powers it had conferred upon them were valueless? Since they had received the Home Secretary's letter last Christmas, they had, however, made the rapid and astounding progress of appointing two Deputy Inspectors at a salary of three guineas per week each, and of also, on the 13th January, instructing their Fire Brigade Committee

  791
  to make a Report on Drury Lane, Covent Garden, the Gaiety, the Vaudeville, the Strand, the Lyceum, and the Opera Comique. No Report, however, was ordered on a well-known underground theatre—on a theatre which could only be approached, so far as the public were concerned, through a private house—and on another theatre built entirely of wood, and which were, no doubt, three of the most dangerous structures in the Metropolis. The order to Report upon the theatres had been given on January 13; but on the 20th March—two months afterwards—the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works had been obliged to confess that he had not received the Report. That Report had only been received by the Home Secretary two or three days before the House rose for the Easter Recess; and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the absence of the Home Secretary, had said that it was of such a serious character that he must decline to give its contents before the Home Secretary had had an opportunity of consulting the Lord Chamberlain upon the subject. Having brought the subject before the House and the country, he had considered that it was his duty to become practically and personally acquainted with the state of the theatres in London; and had, therefore, by the kind exertions of a gentleman well known in matters relating to the extinction of fires in London (Captain Shaw), who had formulated the best rules he had seen for the extinction of fires in theatres, been enabled to visit a great number of theatres and music halls. He regretted that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works had not been with him on the occasion of his inspection, because it would have been probable that that hon. Gentleman would have altered the opinion that he appeared to possess, that the theatres were not unsafe, and would have found that many of our theatres, in cases of fire, would be perfect death-traps. From what he had seen, he had been surprised that accidents had not more frequently occurred, partly from the faults of construction, partly from the materials used, and partly from the necessity of shifting large scenes as dry as tinder in the midst of flaring gaslights. To those dangers should be added the
  792
  utter carelessness caused by the familiarity with danger, which had been well brought before the public by Madame Marie Roze-Mapleson, in a letter to The Times, in which she had said that many artists went behind the scenes nightly at the risk of their lives. In one theatre that he had inspected he had found a workman reading a newspaper by a flaming gaslight close by the scenes that he was waiting to move. When spoken to upon the subject, the man had merely said that he could not read with a shade on the light, and had taken it off. The fireman of the theatre even had not seemed to think that there was anything unusual in the practice. As it was impossible to do away with carelessness, it was also impossible to do away with accidents, as was proved by the fact that between 1861 and 1877, 187 theatres had been destroyed by fire, the number so destroyed being 13 annually—the average life of a theatre being under 23 years. Even in that day's paper there were reports of the destruction by fire of two theatres. The subject divided itself into two parts. One was the safety of the public, and the other was the safety of the house. The safety of the house could be guarded by properly-qualified firemen, from any well-known brigade, always at their posts, and by the employment of hose and hydrants attached to the main service. The proper order and the proper inspection of the apparatus might be left very much to the owners of the house. The safety of the public was a very different matter indeed, and depended, in his opinion, greatly upon their means of getting away, and not upon appliances which, as a rule, were never in working order when wanted. To secure the safety of the public there should be proper exits, every door should be unlocked continuously during the performance, and every door should open outwards. Every part of the house should, in his opinion, have a separate staircase, and no two parts of the house should be served by the same stairs so as to cause a block. The exits ought to be opened and used every night, so as to habituate the public to them; and the result would be that the public, knowing that they could leave the building with perfect ease in a certain number of minutes, would cease to be liable to those panics, which were the cause of

  793
  greater danger in theatres than fire itself. Proper authorities should be appointed to see that the necessary exits were made, and theatres which did not possess them should be closed, as in Rome, St. Petersburg, Paris, Vienna, Marseilles, and other cities. All Inspectors appointed should have some knowledge of their work, and should see that the exits and fire appliances were in proper order, continuously reporting direct to the Home Secretary. He was told that he was raising needless alarm in bringing this subject before the House; but when it was known that two of the largest London theatres had been burnt three times, and one four times, he did not believe that the public would think that was the case, or that they would be satisfied unless some legislation took place which would practically make them safe. At present nobody was responsible if a calamity occurred. Though he did not wish to make the Chairman of the Board of Works or the Home Secretary criminally responsible, as the Viennese were trying to make their authorities, still, after the question had been brought before them in a practical way, he thought they would incur a very large amount of moral responsibility if no notice was taken of the question by them. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had been taunted that they gave up too much of their time to the consideration of foreign affairs, and that they did not bring forward any question of benefit to the people. He had now brought forward a question which was of very great importance to large classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and which had no political aspect whatever; and he called on Members on both sides of the House to support him in saying that some legislation should take place before we were some morning horror-stricken at the loss of life caused by a fire in a theatre. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. WARTONseconded the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in view of the great danger to the Theatre-going public from the insufficiency of powers under existing Acts relating to Theatres, and the laxity with which such powers, conferred by various Acts of Parliament, have been exercised, and that any day, unless some steps are taken
  794
  to insure proper exits and necessary appliances against fire, a calamity may happen which may cause as terrific a loss of life as that which lately occurred at the Ring Theatre at Vienna, a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the state of the exits, and what appliances exist for the prevention or extinction of fires in Theatres and Music Halls, and to report the result of their investigations and recommendations thereon,"—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he entirely recognized the importance of the subject which the hon. Member had brought under the attention of the House, and thought that the hon. Member had performed a very useful task in devoting consideration to this matter. He was very sorry that his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was absent—he was sure from a want of knowledge that this subject was going to be brought on to-night. But, of course, the hon. Member knew very well that the persons primarily responsible in this matter were the Metropolitan Board of Works. He (Sir William Harcourt) had stated more than once in the House that the powers given by the Act of 1878, if they were used, were sufficient—and until the contrary was proved, he should continue to be of that opinion—to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to insist on such security as they deemed to be necessary; and he had stated it more than once in that House that it was useless, therefore, to pass another Act when an Act already existed which, if properly worked, would be perfectly efficient. What was wanted was not a new Act, but the efficient working of the one at present existing. The 11th section of that Act provided—
  "That, when any theatre or other place of public resort was so defective in its structure that special danger might result to the public, in every such case the Metropolitan Board of Works, with the consent of the Lord Chamberlain and of the Secretary of State, if such structural defects could be remedied with moderate expenditure, might require the owner of such places to make such alterations as might be necessary to remedy such defects within a reasonable time."
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: With "moderate" expenditure?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, he thought that every expenditure

  795
  would be regarded as moderate which was found to be necessary to make a theatre safe; and, therefore, what the Metropolitan Board of Works had to do, when they received reports with reference to the defects of a theatre, was to call upon the owner of such theatre to make such structural alterations in the edifice as were deemed essential to the security of the public from fire. If the reasonableness of those demands were disputed, the question then went to arbitration. He had written to the Metropolitan Board of Works that, having received a Report with reference to the theatres, it was their duty to make such requisitions upon the owners of the edifices to make such alterations as, upon the advice of Captain Shaw, the Head of the Fire Brigade, they considered necessary; and if the owners demurred, then let them go to arbitration. The arbitrator was to be appointed by the First Commissioner of Works. The arbitrator would decide whether the demand was reasonable or not, and if reasonable the owners would be bound to make the required alterations under a penalty much greater than any under the Act, because he would be bound by the operation of public opinion, which would prevent anybody going into his theatre unless he complied with the conditions of the arbitrator. But what he maintained was, that the existing machinery was perfectly effective if it were only properly put in force. It was not his business either to condemn or defend the Metropolitan Board of Works. As soon as this subject was brought to his attention by the calamity at Vienna, he wrote to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and called their attention to the subject. He did more; he saw Captain Shaw upon it. Captain Shaw said—"Call for a Report from me, and you will see what I think about it." He accordingly called for a Report, and insisted that there should be a Report upon every theatre in London, in order that he might see it and that the Metropolitan Board of Works and the lessees of the theatres should see it. Reports had been made with regard to 18 theatres, and inspections were now in progress with regard to the rest, preparatory to being reported upon. He had written to the Metropolitan Board of Works to say that the Reports should be communicated to the lessees and the
  796
  Lord Chamberlain, and that the Board might take it for granted that the consent of the Lord Chamberlain and himself would be given to any alterations which, under the advice of Captain Shaw, were deemed to be necessary for the public safety. Therefore, he said that this matter was in course of being dealt with as quickly and as efficiently as possible, because the hon. Member opposite knew there was no man fitter on this subject than Captain Shaw. Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works had been remiss or not was not for him to say; but, at all events, it was not negligent now. It had been called upon publicly to put these Reports in the hands of the owners of theatres, and he advised the House to leave the responsibility in their hands. What would happen if the Motion were agreed to? They would have to wait for some new Act, and the matter would be taken out of the hands of those who were now dealing with it. He did not think that would be for the public advantage. He thought that now the matter was being pressed in the manner he had mentioned by the Metropolitan Board of Works, now that the Reports had been made, now that they had been communicated to the lessees of theatres, and that they knew the Reports would have to be acted upon, we had got as good a security for the safety of theatres as we were likely to obtain. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with this explanation, and would not press his Amendment.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was inclined to agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he recommended that the responsibility ought, if possible, to be left entirely with the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out the recent Acts, especially as their attention had been called so urgently and distinctly to the powers which they possessed under the Act for the protection of the public; but he must also, at the same time, confess that he thought he should like to see a little pressure put upon them to do their duty with regard to the matter, as to which they knew there was a good deal of public anxiety. In the Act of Parliament to which reference had been made there were so many things referred to, besides that of the construction of

  797
  public buildings in the Metropolis, that the Metropolitan Board must have been hindered in dealing with that question. He supposed they might separate the responsibility, to a certain extent, between the Metropolitan Board and the Licensing Authority, because there was no doubt that if the Lord Chamberlain refused to grant his licence where there were defective safeguards for the public, that would be the most efficient way of putting pressure on the proprietors of theatres. Thus, whilst the Metropolitan Board were taking their time for the inspection, and in getting the required alterations executed, if the opinion of the Lord Chamberlain or the Home Secretary was that the public were in danger in any particular theatre, then they could bring the authority they possessed into force, whereby the protection to the public would be more effective than by the dilatory action of the Metropolitan Board. He could not but think that the Board had been dilatory in the matter; and now that prominent attention had been called to the subject, additional responsibility would rest upon them. He doubted very much whether the Board had ever considered that the recent Act had vested them with great and novel powers until the Reports referred to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been sent to them. There were certain points which struck the Committee which sat on the question, with regard to existing theatres and the changes required in them. One was that there should be more numerous exits. Although it was shown that many theatres possessed sufficient exits to be easily emptied in two or three minutes, yet it was also shown conclusively that the public were absolutely ignorant of them with the exception of the door by which they entered. When the inspection by the Lord Chamberlain was made, which was always made with notice, every entrance was in proper order; but on other occasions bars and other obstructions were placed against them, which prevented their being used on an emergency. That was one of the reasons why there should be a more constant inspection of theatres, without any notice being given, so that the public might be sure that every precaution for their safety was being taken. He quite agreed with the remark of his hon. Friend (Mr.
  798
  Dixon-Hartland), that it was important that the public should be made aware that the exits provided were sufficient, and were kept in such a condition as to be available on a moment's notice; and not, as was usually the case, fastened up or used for some other purpose more convenient to the lessee. The existing means of exit should be generally used, instead of, as at present, the public being driven to one or two of the main exits, the other exits being kept only for occasions of danger. The result of that practice was that the public were not accustomed to the various exits, and when danger occurred and panic arose, and when the audience had less coolness and were less capable of thinking of what ought to be done, they naturally all rushed to the main exit, which consequently became blocked. Those were the main points to which the attention of the Metropolitan Board should be directed, with the view of their exercising properly their duties as regarded them. He trusted that while the discussion might go far to rouse managers to a due sense of their duties to the public, his right hon. and learned Friend would not be satisfied with throwing the responsibility on the Metropolitan Board, but that he would continue to urge on them the necessity of using the powers they possessed, and establishing a proper system of inspection, on which the public could rely with certainty. The safety of the public required that no time should be lost in ascertaining what the dangers really were, and putting into force the powers that already existed under the Act, and which had hitherto been so much neglected.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that, in his opinion, the House was under an obligation to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) for bringing the subject so pointedly before its attention. But he (Mr. Cowen) thought the hon. Gentleman had confined himself too much to theatres. It was, no doubt, important; and, whether a Committee was appointed or not, the expressions of opinion that had been elicited from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department could not but have a favourable effect upon the owners and lessees of Metropolitan theatres. He (Mr. Cowen) wished, how-

  799
  ever, to say that there were other places of public resort the means for entrance to and exit from which were just as deficient and as dangerous as in theatres. The construction of some of their public halls was as faulty as the construction of the theatres; and even their churches and chapels were not free from difficulties and dangers. Doubtless, the accident at Vienna was a serious one; but, if he recollected right, that which occurred in the church at Santiago was as disastrous, and even more painful, and was entirely due to deficient exit accommodation. He had had unpleasant experience himself as to the difficulties of getting into a public hall, as at the last Election he got an uncomfortable squeeze in crushing into a crowded meeting. He would urge, therefore, that, as regarded remedies, attention should not be given to one description of public buildings alone. After the accident at Vienna, the Provincial authorities in the North of England had instituted inquiries as to the condition of the theatres within their jurisdiction, and he believed that generally the reports had not been unfavourable. The provision for letting an audience out of a theatre was usually sufficient. In some places it was excessive—more than was required. The chief danger arose from panic. If the people would simply leave the theatres quietly, there was scarcely any place that would not allow them to get out easily. It was panic that caused the loss of life. The way people acted in a panic was most extraordinary. He remembered Mr. Boucicault, who had probably had as much experience in theatrical management as any man living, say that when he built a theatre in New York he made unusual provisions for the audience leaving along both sides of the building. He had big folding doors placed, and on them painted in conspicuous letters the announcement that if the audience simply pressed these doors they would open, and egress would thus be obtained without difficulty. Notwithstanding the existence of these doors and the announcement, on the very first occasion of a panic the people did not avail themselves of that provision, but crushed out at the ordinary doors, causing some considerable injury and some loss of life. It was not sufficient, therefore, to provide means of exit. These should be regularly used, and the people should
  800
  become accustomed to their use. People in a panic were always selfish, and it was all but impossible to provide for the unreasonable exhibition of that feeling. All they could do was to make the best provision possible, and trust to the good sense of the public.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he agreed with the reasons given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the appointment of a Committee, because the question was urgent, and the only effect of the appointment of the Committee would be to postpone the matter for a year. Long before the Vienna catastrophe there was a disastrous fire in a theatre at Nice, and it was astonishing to him that the Metropolitan Board of Works let such a question as the one under notice slide, as it had done, until the Vienna accident occurred, when they found that four years ago an Act was passed which conferred on them ample powers if they would only put them into force. The Report of Captain Shaw, which had been referred to, mentioned particularly eight theatres. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was naturally reluctant to lay that Report upon the Table of the House, because he knew that if he did so those eight theatres would be empty in future. He (Mr. Macfarlane) ventured to think that if the public in this City realized the risk they ran when they went out to amuse themselves they would never enter a theatre. To show what little attention was paid to the orders of the Lord Chamberlain, he might refer to the fact that a few years ago it was the custom to fill the various gangways of theatres with chairs for the accommodation of extra people. But he (Mr. Macfarlane) called the attention of the Lord Chamberlain to the dangerous practice, who at once issued an order that it should be discontinued. But what was the effect of the Lord Chamberlain's order? It was simply not obeyed. On going to a theatre within a week after the prohibition was issued, the stalls being full, he (Mr. Macfarlane) was offered a chair in the gangway, and, on his reminding the box keeper that the Lord Chamberlain had forbidden chairs to be placed there, the man simply laughed and did no more. The dangers were due, he contended, to the laxity of

  801
  the authorities, and, first of all, to the Lord Chamberlain. If the latter were to suspend the licence of a single theatre for the space of six months on account of infraction of his regulations, he believed that all structural dangers and such obstacles as he had mentioned would disappear the next day. The fact was that an idea was prevalent that the sole duty of the Lord Chamberlain was to regulate the length of the skirts of the ladies of the corps de ballet, and that he had nothing whatever to do with looking after the safety of the public. The last Act, which transferred a considerable portion of the authority of the Lord Chamberlain to the Metropolitan Board of Works, was passed in 1878, and yet they were only now discussing the question whether that Act should be put in force. He hoped that steps would be immediately taken to insure the safety of the public in this matter. There was no way of allaying panic except by convincing the public mind that there were efficient means of escape. He thought the assurances of the Secretary of State for the Home Department were sufficient, and hoped the Motion would not be pressed to a division. The Metropolitan Board of Works had sufficient powers in the matter; and it was not creditable to them that they had not put them in force. He admitted it was hard on lessees of theatres, who were not proprietors, to spend a lot of money on structural alterations, and thought in such cases the owner should be made the responsible person.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that, after what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he should ask leave to withdraw his Motion. If no steps, however, were taken in the matter by the Metropolitan Board of Works, he should be obliged to bring it forward again.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

WOODS AND FORESTS—FIRES IN WOOLMER FOREST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, who had given Notice of his intention to call attention to damage recently caused by fires originating on the Government property in Woolmer Forest, and to move a Resolution thereon, said, that
  802
  he would not then detain the House by going into the subject. The fires were said to be caused by the keepers in charge of the forest setting fire to the heather for the better preservation of the game. He had to complain, however, that the Papers relating to the subject, which had been moved for seven or eight weeks ago, had not yet been placed in the hands of Members.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he must apologize for not having hurried on the printing of the Papers in question; but he had no idea that there was any particular hurry for them, and the demands on the printer were very heavy. Instructions, however, should at once be given that they should be taken in hand promptly.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,966,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport, and other Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883."
SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he thought those interested in the Refreshment Department of the Army Estimates would be pleased at the manner in which the charges were presented on this occasion, inasmuch as the absolute expenditure on the Services was shown. The probability was that some economy would result from the new system which had been adopted. As he understood it, the extra receipts which had hitherto been handed back to the Exchequer, and there, so far as the Army was concerned, lost sight of, would now be available, under the direction of the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), for promoting such minor changes as did not, perhaps, form part of the Estimates, and which could not be effected were it not for economies brought about. It had often struck him that the officers of our Army had not those inducements to study economy which it was very desirable they should have; and this was probably due, in a great measure, to the

803
system which bad been in vogue. Hitherto, the result of economies effected had been handed back to the Exchequer; therefore, military men had had no particular interest in studying economy; but, under the present system, if general officers commanding districts were enabled to effect certain economies in those districts, he hoped that, under the direction of the Secretary of State for War, they would be able to lay out certain sums which they had never had the opportunity of laying out before, and the non-application of which had been, in the past, a great disadvantage to the Army. He trusted they might now look forward to the period when the Army was passing out of that transition state in which it had been for so long. They might say that for the past 12 years the Army had been in the hands of the reformer. Mr. Cardwell first brought forward many changes which, as was well enough known, were not received with much favour on that (the Opposition) side of the House; but following Mr. Cardwell came Mr. Hardy—the present Lord Cranbrook—who stated, in the first speech he delivered as Secretary of State for War, that at that period he was not able to say that he would reverse the policy of his Predecessor; and, on further consideration, he announced that it was not his intention to do so. Since that three Secretaries of State had had charge of the War Office; and he could say, without fear of contradiction, that in no case had there been anything like what they might call a serious reversal of policy. His right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) followed after Mr. Hardy; and he, impressed with the belief that continuity of work in carrying out the system was of the utmost importance—although, no doubt, he might have thought that many things might with advantage have been done in a different way—went on in the spirit of his Predecessors with many changes, improving here and there; but still moving in the one direction. Without pretending to go through all the improvements his right hon. Friend introduced, he must allude to one very advantageous reform which the right hon. Gentleman effected in the Pay Department. This had been a matter of great difficulty. They remembered that atone time it was thought that the officers of
804
the Army, capable as they no doubt were to lead our soldiers, were not sufficiently instructed in such matters to be able to deal satisfactorily with accounts; but the right hon. Gentleman took a different view, and persevered in that view, and carried out a considerable change in the Department, which change he (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) hoped to hear from the Secretary of State for War was working well. For his own part, he believed it was working remarkably well. He was assured that competent officers now had charge of the Pay Department, and were performing their duties to the satisfaction of all classes. Another reform which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire carried out, and which the House must remember hearing a great deal about, for it took considerable interest in it at the time, was connected with the Medical Department. The subject was one of great difficulty, and at that time, when these difficulties were before them, it was almost impossible to find medical men to enter the Army, so unpopular had the Service become. Now, however, in consequence of the useful reforms carried out by the right hon. Gentleman, medical gentlemen readily entered the Army, and were anxious to compete at the very difficult examinations through which Army medical officers had to pass. These were two points on which great improvement had been effected by his right hon. Friend. He would allude to another proposal, or rather scheme, which was formulated at the War Office by the right hon. Gentleman; and he must say that the right hon. Gentleman had considerable cause to regret being obliged to leave the War Office when he did, as he had at the time in hand some improvements which, if they had been carried out, would have redounded to the credit of the Administration. The right hon. Gentleman formulated the scheme which had subsequently been carried out by the present Secretary of State for War; and it must be a consolation to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire to see the plan which he and those who worked with him so carefully matured carried out so fairly and loyally by his Successor. It seemed to him (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) that perhaps the most important point which was raised by the pre-

805
sent Secretary of State for War, in the speech which he delivered just previous to the Easter Recess, was that which related to the formation of a First Army Corps. They were in the habit in that House of referring to the opinion of the intelligent foreigner; but he would not go beyond quoting the opinion of the intelligent Englishman. His opinion was this—not, perhaps, always expressed, for they did not very often find Englishmen taking an active interest in the Army, believing, as they did, that everything was going on smoothly—but when the opinion of the intelligent Englishman was expressed, it was this—that for the large sum which was annually spent on our Army, we ought to have one fit to take the field at a week's notice, without disarranging and dislocating the whole of our Home system. The right hon. Gentleman, in coming to the War Office, had observed how essential it was that we should have an Army of this kind, and had set himself the task of giving it to us. He had, apparently, advanced a considerable distance in the direction of affording us such an Army, surmounting all the difficulties and obstacles which stood in his way. Now, what appeared to him (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) to be one of these difficulties, and perhaps the chief difficulty, in the way of having a complete scheme by which we could send the troops forward without dislocation, was that we had not a sufficient number of men; 10,000 more men were required. He did not, on this occasion, venture to recommend such a large addition as that, or any addition at all; but he wished to point out that if we had for our Home Army 71 battalions and a fixed number of men—without taking the depôts into consideration, 42,000 men—if the men were divided equally amongst the battalions, the result was that when they were ordered on service not one of them was fit to take the field. The result was that immediately a battalion was ordered on service it had to be made up to its full strength, and the method that had naturally suggested itself of doing that was by volunteering. As to the system of volunteering, it had fallen greatly into discredit. He did not altogether disagree with its use; but it was objected to, and the main objection taken to it was this. Supposing volunteers were called for, they were furnished from some other regiment, and that regiment in turn
806
became weakened, and probably, a little later, that regiment itself was ordered on service, then they might have these two regiments serving together, the result being that because men from the first had gone into the second the officers of the first were well acquainted with the men of the second, as they had served with them, but were not acquainted with the men of their own regiment. But, for his own part, he thought there were great advantages in volunteering, and he trusted it would not be altogether dropped, because they could fairly use it as a proper mode of strengthening their companies, and they might take it for granted that it was not unpopular. Twenty shillings was about the sum that represented the objection which a lad had to changing his battalion. For that small sum of 20 s. a soldier was generally perfectly ready to go into another battalion. Now, this necessity which he had spoken of in connection with the First Army Corps would not arise in a great emergency. It was only in a small war that it arose, because in a great emergency they had their machinery, which was well understood—calling out the Reserves and embodying the Militia, and so on. But, whether for a large or small war, he hoped we should soon be able to say that we had an Army Corps fit to take the field at a week's notice. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded by means of a sort of system of selection. He selected 12 regiments at the head of the Roster, or rather it could be said that these regiments, in a certain sense, selected themselves. They rose by a gradual process until they became the first regiments on the Roster. They were composed of about 12,000 men, and these, with the eight battalions in the Mediterranean—making about 18,000 men—and the three battalions of Guards formed the First Army Corps. Looking at the Return "The Army (Variation of Numbers)," which the right hon. Gentlemen had placed before them, a very curious similitude occurred to his mind. It really appeared as though the right hon. Gentleman had divided his 71 battalions at home after the manner in which Dante divided the spirits of those who departed into another world. Twelve battalions were raised to a most perfect state—it might be said that they were in a state of beatitude. But then,

807
if they cast an eye down the Return, they found 37 battalions which, if the others were in the Paradiso, were certainly in the Inferno. The condition of the 37 was as unfortunate as that of the 12 was happy. They were in a state of attenuated shadows. Then, as an intermediate state between these two conditions, they came to 24 battalions which were eminently in the Purgatorio. They were rising gradually from the lower condition until they could venture to hope to reach the higher regions. It seemed to him rather unfortunate that whilst there were only 12 battalions in Puradiso there were 37 in Inferno. He would venture to say two or three words about these 37 battalions. First, as to the officers, the commanding officer of each was really in a very unfortunate position. Perhaps he had looked forward all his life to the time when he would have the great distinction of commanding his regiment; but, unluckily for him, he rose just at the time his regiment was in this transition state. The battalion would rise again; but then his five years would probably have elapsed, and by the time his regiment became complete he would have run out his period. What he (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) wished the right hon. Gentleman to consider was, what could be done for these officers, because, undoubtedly, their case was a very hard one? They deserved that some means should be found of mitigating the hardship of their condition. Their duties were very important, and the officer who trained a young regiment up well deserved all the credit that could possibly be given to him. As to the regiments themselves, he wished to lay some stress upon this—that, as he had said, they were nothing more than shadowy regiments made up of recruits. It must be so—it could not be otherwise. They were not merely regiments half made up of recruits; but, as he understood the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, they would be more than half made up of recruits. By far the greater part of the regiments would be recruits; therefore nothing more should be expected of them than they were able to show, which would be very little. We should make up our minds to consider them nothing more than nurseries for the training of recruits; and, above all things, in his opinion, they ought not to be sent to Aldershot
808
or any of the camps where they constantly came under the notice of their own countrymen and of foreigners. They should be kept as much as possible out of sight. Obviously the proper place for these regiments, the officers of which had nothing to do but drill a parcel of boys, was the county towns to which they were territorially attached. Their drill would be nothing more than recruit drill. They did not need to go through the higher courses of tactics which were taught at Aldershot. Nothing but the simplest matter, the alphabet of warfare, would be taught them; and he should therefore, be glad to see them sent to their own localities. This led him to a remark he wished to make in regard to an item of expenditure in the Estimates, which, he observed, related not to buildings, but to repairs at Aldershot. He was under the impression that at Aldershot and at Shorncliffe there was already plenty of accommodation for the regiments the right hon. Gentleman proposed to put into the First Army Corps; and, if that were so, obviously what should now be done, if further money was to be expended, should be to improve the barracks distributed throughout the county towns, in order that they might be rendered efficient for the purposes for which they were required. Three millions of money had been spent on these depôt centres, and still they were not in that condition in which they ought to be. A slight further expenditure on them, however, would make them fit and proper places to receive the territorial regiments that belonged to them. It was not proper to run the two things together—the Aldershot scheme and the territorial scheme, which provided that regiments were to be quartered in the county towns amongst the people from whom they were recruited and amongst the officers, whom, he trusted, would all one day be drawn from the counties to which the regiments they joined belonged. He hoped, if there was further expenditure on buildings, it would be in the direction he had indicated rather than on the improvement of Aldershot, which they knew had swallowed up an enormous sum—much more than anyone in the House had anticipated. An enormous amount had been spent, and, to his mind, mis-spent, on Aldershot. Aldershot seemed to be a place fitted for a camp of instruction,

809
where troops should go in the summer months and have instruction in the open air—under canvas if necessary. Buildings had been erected at Aldershot, as he said, at enormous expense, and further expenditure was going on there. This was the place the right hon. Gentleman ought to fix his eye on. He ought to take care that no further amounts were spent there. On the contrary, he should rather endeavour to make the territorial scheme more efficient by rendering the barracks fitted for the reception of battalions. Passing to the Report which was made to the Secretary of State for War by the officers in charge of recruiting, he was very glad to see that the pledge that was given last year—namely, that men of 19 years of age, or the equivalent of 19 years of age, should be the only men enlisted for the future in the Army, had been carried out, and was answering as well as could be expected. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman was sanguine of being able to say some day that he would limit the age to 20. If that was so, so much the better; but we must remember this—that we might not always be able to recruit as readily as we did now. At present we enlisted between 19,000 and 20,000 a-year; but agriculture and trade were a little slack at present, and we must bear in mind that a day might come when we might not be able to recruit with the same facility. He hoped, therefore, that nothing would be done to tie the hands of the recruiting staff; and that they should be allowed, if necessary, to take the men as best they could. He observed that the standard of height was rather reduced, and he did not understand how that could be, whilst, at the same time, the standard of age was increased. One would have naturally supposed that as they took men of older years, so the stature would have been increased; or, at any rate, that it would not have been reduced. Another point to which he wished to draw attention in the statement made by the Inspector of Recruiting was that which related to the physique of the recruits who came into the Army. He certainly thought it was a matter for congratulation to see the remarkably good physique of our troops compared with that of the troops of foreign nations. On looking at the Return, he saw that the English recruit, as
810
compared with the French recruit, had the advantage in height of about 3 inches, and almost a similar advantage in chest measurement. Then they came down to Austria and Germany, and in both those countries the recruits were inferior to the English recruits by about 2½ inches in height, and the same in chest measurement. That was a point which ought to be noticed, because they frequently heard remarks made on public occasions as to the miserable condition and physique of the British recruit. Statements of that kind were frequently made in the Press, and were available to anyone who chose to cast their eye over them; and when such a reply as this was possible it should be given. The right hon. Gentleman had held out some hopes of being able to do something for the Volunteers; but he did not find in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he proposed to do much for them at present. He spoke of issuing capes to them, and it was to be hoped that would be done. It was really most essential—he (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) could not say how important he deemed it—that protection should be given to our Volunteers, who had been exposed from time to time to most inclement weather. He was surprised they had not frequently found many of the Volunteers on the sick list, in consequence of the way they were exposed. He understood that the Volunteers were to be brought, to a certain extent, within the territorial system; at all events, the names of certain regiments would appear as forming the fourth battalions of certain territorial districts. He highly approved of that plan. There was no more territorial force in the Service of the Crown; indeed, he thought it was the most territorial force; and it was very desirable that we should be able gradually to draw the Volunteers into the system. Then, with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to warrant rank, hon. Members were perfectly satisfied. Non-commissioned officers might rise to have their names in The Army List associated with the names of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Commander-in-Chief, and the many distinguished people connected with the Army. It would, he was sure, be a great inducement to young men to join the Army to think that by good conduct they could rise to warrant rank, and have their names in The Army List.

811
But he wished to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had left out the quartermaster sergeants. That was an unfortunate omission, as the quartermaster sergeant was a most important person, as they all knew. He was a more important person even than the sergeant major; not at home, perhaps—the sergeant major there being an officer, it was desirable to magnify and make as much of as possible—but on active service. The quartermaster sergeant had charge of the stores, had to face many difficulties, and was thrown into many temptations. His position was most responsible, and it would, no doubt, be to the benefit of the Service that he should be included in warrant rank.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was doing his best to give effect to all those measures which were calculated to be to the good of the Army; and the right hon. Gentleman was doing so with a liberality which could not fail to meet with success. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would deal properly and liberally with the many officers who suffered by the changes in their military system. It was heart-breaking, in many instances, for officers who were in the prime of life to be now put aside and placed on the Retired List. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to compensate those officers to the utmost extent. Of course, the officers who entered the Army hereafter must take the chances of service according to the new rules. Several changes of great importance had been made in the mode in which the Army Estimates were framed, one important change being to use the funds derived from the sale of stores, and hitherto paid into the Exchequer as Civil Receipts, in diminution of the Army Charges; but, whilst cordially approving of those receipts being so used, having been advocated whilst employed in the War Office, at the same time, those changes deprived them of the facility of comparing the present with the past Army Expenditure. He was perfectly well alive to the financial dangers and difficulties which might attend the appropriation of the extra receipts in diminishing the expenditure of the Army; and to guard against abuse it was necessary the greatest care should
812
be taken by the Secretary of State for War, as well as by the Public Accounts Committee, in having a public record made of all the extra receipts distinct from the Appropriation in Aid. He was not yet satisfied that they had taken all the possible precautions to guard against abuse; but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had supplied him (Sir George Balfour) with all the information on the subject which was at his command, and he would carefully go into the matter and see if he could not make some acceptable suggestions. Another change had been made of showing the pay drawn by Staff officers in lump sums, including regimental and Staff pay. That was a right course; but it wholly deprived Members of the power of comparing the past payments with present payments. There was one point to which he earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman's attention would be drawn, and that was the employment of our Army in Ireland. He looked with great apprehension upon the present employment of troops in Ireland. Judging from his experience in India, nothing had tended more to produce the Mutiny in the Bengal Army than the employment of troops very much after the way our soldiers were now being employed in Ireland. They were scattered in small bodies, and often detached under young subalterns, and they were charged with duties which soldiers ought not to be called on to perform. Military and Constabulary duties were of a different character, and yet our soldiers were used for the duties which police ought to perform. He earnestly hoped the Secretary of State for War would, as soon as possible, withdraw the troops from Ireland, and collect them in places where the discipline might be properly looked after. He could not express in words too strong the danger there was to the discipline of the Army by the employment of soldiers in the manner they were now employed in Ireland. There was another point to which he also desired to draw attention. They had long had doubts with regard to the efficiency of the troops in the field in the matter of firing. A Committee had inquired into the subject, but the Report of that Committee had never been made public; indeed, the Secretary of State had refused to make it public. He presumed that the very reason which existed to prevent the publication, of the

813
Report ought to induce the Secretary of State for War to see to the efficiency of the troops in regard to firing. In the interest of the Army one essential point was that the men should be withdrawn from every duty which interfered with their efficient training as soldiers—for instance, every guard which could be dispensed with ought to be done away with, because it was well that, as far as possible, soldiers should be kept together in bodies, and day by day subject to military training under their regimental officers. In this country we had never attended to that with sufficient care; but in India, when he (Sir George Balfour) had the honour of being connected with military finance there, the guard and sentry employment of every kind by which soldiers could be taken away from their regiments was, with the approval of Lord Canning, done away with. Even the ordinary military guards for Commissariat and other Stores, treasure, and other minor purposes, were abolished, and watchmen employed, wherever it was practicable. Then, as regarded the formation of the regiments of Cavalry and Infantry. First, concerning the Cavalry, he wished to point out that 12 years ago a very important change was made under the administration of Lord Hampton, on the advice of the late Sir Hope Grant, by which the Cavalry was formed into squadrons. After the lapse of two years, however, Mr. Cardwell thought fit to change the system, and to return to the troop formation, mainly on account of the difficulty of reconciling the Purchase system with the squadron formation. That difficulty no longer existed. He (Sir George Balfour) regretted the retrograde step at the time, and he regretted it now. He would not at present express any opinion as to the recently proposed formation of Cavalry into brigades; but he thought that squadrons ought to be adopted at once. As to the strength and efficiency of battalions being improved, as supposed, by organizing that body in companies 10 in number, as formerly, and now in eight companies, he thought that a blunder, unless each company had at least 100 privates. But with battalions of 800 privates and under, he thought a six-company formation was the utmost that ought to be practised, and that, instead of having small companies of 30 or 40 men, no company should be com-
814
posed of less than 100 up to 150 men. In that formation there would then be a captain and three subalterns effective with each company, and the Regimental Establishment should provide for having the officers and non-commissioned officers needed for that strength thoroughly effective. He approved of all the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) had said with regard to warrant officers, and he was proud that the Secretary of State for War had created that rank. Whilst at the War Office that rank was earnestly urged; but the opposition of the Horse Guards' Branch prevented its creation. But by its creation the Secretary of State had effected a great improvement in the Army in this respect. He was confident that great good to the Army would result from the formation of the rank of warrant officers, inasmuch as a number of young men would now be induced to enter the Army who would not otherwise think of doing so. There was no part of the Indian military system that had been of so much benefit to the Army as the creation of warrant officers. At the time when every branch of the Imperial Army was in want of recruits, the Indian Army obtained an unlimited supply, and mainly because promotion to warrant rank could be secured. He spoke from experience when he said that the warrant officers in the Indian Army had behaved themselves fully as well as the commissioned officers. He would even go so far as to say that they would find fewer courts martial in regard to warrant officers than in respect to officers of the Army. Any distinction that the right hon. Gentleman could make with regard to warrant officers would have his warm approval. Another subject on which he (Sir George Balfour) wished to speak was in connection with the responsibilities and division of work at the War Office. No doubt the Secretary of State was wholly charged with every duty; but there existed a division of work of a rather curious character. Under the present system the Commander-in-Chief, the Financial Secretary, and the Surveyor General of Ordnance acted under Orders in Council issued 10 years ago during the administration of Lord Cardwell. Their responsibilities and duties were defined by those Orders, which ought to have been specially laid

815
before Parliament in a direct and formal manner, instead of becoming known through a Select Committee. It was fully admitted that no duties assigned to those officers by the Orders in Council could be performed except under the distinct control of the Secretary of State. But in order to show that those officers, charged, as they were, with such important duties in this special and formal manner, had an appreciation of their duties, and that they did attend to them, it was essentially necessary that they should be required to present an annual Report on all the heads and duties detailed in the Orders in Council. For instance, his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office should submit a Report concerning the whole of his Department to the Secretary of State for War. So, also, the Surveyor General of the Ordnance and the Commander-in-Chief should report on the working of the several branches assigned to them in the Orders; and the Secretary of State, in turn, would be enabled to lay a full and ample Statement before the House, as well as the Reports in question. There were many points connected with the administration of the Army with which it was impossible for the Secretary of State for War, in his Annual Statement, to deal. Able as the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman were, they were usually confined to generalities. The Reports, however, to which he (Sir George Balfour) had referred would supply a great deal of the required but omitted information. He thought that the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General should also be called upon to report upon the administration of justice in the Army, and generally on the working of the Army Act. And now he would ask the Secretary of State for War if he would be good enough, when making his Statement next year, to compare the present expenditure on the Army and Navy with the expenditure under those heads in the year 1869–70? In the latter year the Army Expenditure was brought down to less than £14,000,000, being a lower sum than it had stood at since the Crimean War, and since that time it had been increasing yearly, and now it was upwards of £16,000,000. Of course, if they wished to have efficiency, they must expect to have a heavy expenditure; but still he could not help thinking that if they
816
were to compare the details of the present expenditure with that of 1869–70, some mode could be shown by which economy might be effected. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was going to make some saving by a reduction in the number of general officers. He (Sir George Balfour) heartily approved of the suggestion, for he was satisfied a smaller number of officers of this rank would be quite competent to perform the necessary duties. He had also again to complain of the mode in which the military expenditure was swollen by the charges on account of the guns, projectiles, ammunition, and warlike stores needed for the Navy. In the present Estimates the sum of £616,000 was charged to the Army, which really belonged to the Navy. That was a higher amount for their Supplies than hitherto charged in any year before. Surely the Navy could take that expenditure which was incurred by the re-organization of the Naval Ordnance upon their own shoulders. These re-organizations were constantly occurring. During the last 20 years there had been four or five Naval re-organizations of guns, and probably before they had paid the money necessary for the purpose of carrying out the present re-organization they would have another re-organization, so that there would never be an end to the Army military expenditure bearing a new charge. All these changes in a degree flowed from the erroneous course of making the Army Estimates bear the cost of the Naval Stores. But he (Sir George Balfour) was fully willing to admit that the like mistaken course was followed in making the Naval Estimates bear the cost of the Transports required for the Army. Both practices caused carelessness in regard to the expenditure. But as he saw there were other hon. Members who wished to take part in the debate, so he would reserve whatever else he was inclined to say till a future occasion.
COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, there were one or two points in connection with these Estimates upon which, with the permission of the Committee, he would like to address a few observations to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. In the first place, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in his recent speech at Pontefract he said that the

817
compulsory retirement of officers at the early age of 40 was an evil the most dangerous to the efficiency of our officers that could possibly be imagined; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this danger was not likely to occur shortly in the Brigade of Guards unless steps were taken speedily to stop the present stagnation of promotion which, prevailed in that corps? The causes of that stagnation were not far to seek. When, in 1871, the privileges of the Guards were prospectively abolished, the intention was expressed of assimilating the Guards in every respect to the regiments of the Line; but, in one very important particular, that intention had never been fulfilled—namely, no second lieutenant colonels were appointed to the battalion of Guards, as was the case in the Line; and, consequently, promotion which would result from those appointments was seriously affected. In the Line two lieutenant colonels retired within a period of six years; but in the Guards there were only two retirements in eight years. It appeared to him that the only remedy for this evil was the immediate appointment of second lieutenant colonels to the battalion of Guards. Certainly, unless some steps were taken, and that speedily, to remove the present block of promotion, the professional prospects of many promising young officers who entered the Service immediately after the privileges of the Guards were abolished would be seriously endangered. He made this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, not so much in the interest of the officers themselves, but in the interest of the efficiency of the Brigade of Guards, which, as all would admit, ought to be maintained so long as the brigade itself was maintained. Passing to the important subject of recruiting, he heartily congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the large number of recruits which he had at present obtained. He had correspondents in the recruiting districts who fully bore out the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. What was the cause of this sudden development of martial ardour? The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech at Pontefract, attributed it to the advantages which he recently conferred on the non-commissioned officers. He (Colonel Alexander) did not wish to underrate in any way those ad-
818
vantages. On the contrary, he thought that in conferring them the right hon. Gentleman had established a lasting claim to the gratitude of the Army; but he was bound to say, for the information of the Committee, that the Inspector General of Recruiting, in his Report, assigned other reasons for the exceptionally large influx of recruits at the present time. The Inspector General of Recruiting said that the result was due partly to the lower standard of height prevailing in the Infantry, and partly to the localization of that arm. Now, it did appear to him (Colonel Alexander) somewhat strange that in the long and interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman in explaining the Estimates—a speech to which he (Colonel Alexander) listened with the greatest attention—the right hon. Gentleman passed by, as if beneath notice from him, the fact that last year the standard of height in the Infantry was reduced to a lower point than it had touched at any period since the year 1870, when short service was first introduced. If the right hon. Gentleman was obtaining such a large number of recruits—almost more than he wanted (as Sir John Adye boasted at the Guildhall)—why, then, by reducing the standard of height, did he disregard the advice given last year by the Inspector General, who, in his Report, said—
"That the standard, once fixed, ought never to be disturbed, and that the conditions of recruiting; ought always to he as simple and as permanent as possible."
The Inspector General, in his present Report, took very good care not to revert to this extremely inconvenient subject; but he made a casual remark which went far to explain the reasons which actuated the right hon. Gentleman in reducing the standard for the Infantry last year to 5 feet 4 inches. The Inspector General remarked, in his Report, that the minimum age of recruits was raised last year to the physical equivalent of 19 years, and that the standard of height for the Infantry, was at the same time, reduced to 5 feet 4 inches. Now, the Committee would recollect that last year the right hon. Gentleman took great credit to himself for raising the minimum of age to what he called the physical equivalent of 19 years, adding that he hoped, after a time, to make the minimum 20 years. The right hon. Gen-

819
tleman never said at that time that the carrying out of his scheme would involve a reduction of one inch in the standard of height for the Infantry. The right hon. Gentleman evidently felt that he owed some apology for making this reduction in the standard of height, for the Inspector General of Recruiting, in an Appendix to his Report, said that, even with a standard of 5 feet 4 inches, our Army would still be taller than any other Army in Europe. That the large influx of recruits was almost entirely due to the reduction of the standard of height was conclusively proved by the remark of the Inspector General that neither for the Guardsmen or gunners of the Royal Artillery the recruiting came up to the standard required, because both for the Guards and gunners of the Royal Artillery superior qualifications were required. He understood that within the last few weeks the chest measurement for gunners of the Royal Artillery had actually been reduced from 35 to 34 inches. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of the increasing popularity of the Service; but if the Service was so popular as he alleged it to be, how did it happen, as mentioned by the Inspector General in his Report, that so large a number of men purchased their discharge just before the completion of their period of service? Now, in his Report last year, the Inspector General reckoned the discharge by purchase as part of the waste of the Army; and it was now proposed to diminish, or rather to utilize, this waste by allowing men who would otherwise have purchased their discharge to pass into the Reserve after three years' service with the Colours. It appeared to him that this artificial increase of the Reserve was strongly to be condemned, for the men who would thus pass prematurely into the Reserve, and who would otherwise have purchased their discharge, would, in his opinion, and, he knew, in the opinion of many competent officers, be amongst the discontented spirits of the Army, and would have, moreover, nine years in which to forget the little they had learnt. He was surprised to see in The Times, a few days ago, a rumour—he believed it was something more than a rumour—that a certain proportion of the First Class Army Reserve were to receive an immediate discharge on the
820
condition of taking military service in South Africa. He must confess it passed his comprehension how the right hon. Gentleman, after laboriously building up the First Class Army Reserve at the expense of the active Army, could, with so little consideration, recklessly disperse it. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he was getting not only more men, but better men, and that characters were now required with recruits. He was very much astonished by that statement, because a commanding officer of Infantry and an adjutant of Cavalry had both assured him that under no circumstances whatever was a character required with a recruit; and the commanding officer of Infantry had added that, under such circumstances, the number of recruits obtained would have been infinitesimally small. The fact was, the less that was said about character the better. The Police Gazette of a very recent date contained the names of no fewer than 319 deserters; and, until the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in materially reducing that very ominous list, it was absolutely idle to talk of a better class of men now pervading the ranks of the Army. He regretted that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. John Holms) was now gagged. Hon. Gentlemen who sat in the last Parliament would remember how eloquently that hon. Member used to descant upon this theme. He did not deny that a considerable number of recruits now presented themselves for enlistment, and it was said that the territorial system was the cause of the increase. The Inspector General, in his last Report, admitted that there was a great variation in the recruiting capabilities of the various districts, and that, so far, the territorial system had been interfered with; and he expressed a hope that, in the course of time, the recruits required for each regiment would, in the majority of cases, be found in their own districts. Except for the principle that "hope springs eternal in the human breast," the foundation for this expectation appeared to him extremely slender, for surely it was obvious that in maintaining so many districts varying in their recruiting capabilities there must always be a surplus in one district and a deficit in another; and where there was a surplus, that must be got rid of, either by passing

821
men prematurely into the Reserve, or by transferring them into other regiments. The Committee would see that the latter course was not likely to conduce to the popularity of the Service, for men, instead of being allowed to serve in their own local regiments, would be forced to enlist for general service. Would not the right hon. Gentleman do much better to get rid of some of those recruiting districts? What possible use could there be, for instance, in maintaining the 32nd District, which produced last year exactly 40 recruits? This territorial system was avowedly based on the German system; but in Germany the conscription was the keystone of the arch, and without conscription the territorial system was like the play of Hamlet with the part of the Prince of Denmark omitted. If the system was the success which the right hon. Gentleman asserted it was, how did it happen that no fewer than 20 territorial regiments, including the Regiment of Pontefract, were now without any fourth battalion, while one regiment had neither the third nor fourth battalion? Did the right hon. Gentleman ever expect to raise another battalion of Militia in Cornwall, where, as the hon. Baronet the Member for West Cornwall (Sir John St. Aubyn) told the Militia Committee, the population preferred either the Navy or the Marines? The fusion between the Line and the Militia was little more than nominal, for if it were real officers would be interchangeable. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that at Hamilton, which, in answer to a Question he had put last year, the right hon. Gentleman had prophesied would be the great recruiting ground for Highlanders, had gained, between the 1st of July last year and the 1st of January this year, exactly five Highland recruits for the two battalions of Highland Line Infantry? The fact was that Hamilton was much too near Glasgow, and Glencorse too near Edinburgh, to make those stations of any practical use for recruiting under the present system. One-third of our Infantry consisted of attenuated battalions of, perhaps, 450 men, and great fault was often found with commanding officers, because they did not like these attenuated battalions. But why did not they like them? Not because, as was alleged, of their poor
822
appearance on parade, or because of the absence of the "pomp and circumstance of war," but because those attenuated battalions offered no adequate means of instruction to officers or men. A general officer commanding a district had told him that, with two of its battalions, he could not place more than 80 men on parade. Our case was very much like that of the French Army, as described a few months ago by the Correspondent of The Times, who stated that for many months to come tactical instruction in the French Army would be practically in abeyance, for, after making some necessary deductions for sick, guards, and employed, there would not be a dozen men per company for parade. Before Easter the right hon. Gentleman had stated that in each of the 71 battalions stationed at home there would be, on an average, 270 recruits—in other words, that nearly one-half of the forces available at home must always consist, under any circumstances, of recruits. Even at the risk of being called a pessimist and a croaker, he could not help expressing a fear that we should suffer in the future, as we had suffered before, from the fatal youthfulness of our Army. He was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman had denied the youth of the Army which was defeated last year by the Boers in South Africa; and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at Glasgow, had attributed the defeat, not to the youth of the men, but to a mistake committed by a most gallant but unfortunate commander. Upon that point he should not like to say much, for he could not help remembering a short time ago The Times stated that without promotion by selection we must inevitably recur to the military imbecility of former days; but he would ask whether last year we had not in South Africa the pick of the choicest talent which the Staff College could afford? Further, he would ask whether any of the "military imbecility" displayed in former days could have been attended with more fatal results than were the battles of Laing's Nek and Majuba Hill? There was a disposition at this moment on the part of the public to believe that we had the best possible Army. God grant that the public might not be some day fatally undeceived! But, in the meantime, if our Ministers prophesied falsely, they were entitled

823
to take refuge in the plea that the people loved to have it so.
COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he wished to call attention to the case of those soldiers who were entering now upon their 12th year of service, and would suffer great hardship through the operation of the Queen's Regulations of last year. From a Return which the right hon. Gentleman had furnished him with, it appeared that there were over 4,000 private soldiers who enlisted in 1870, under the Act of 1867, who were now eligible for re-engagement. The Act of 1867 gave these men the privilege of reengaging after seven years' service. It did not give them the right of re-engagement; but they were encouraged to do so by an additional 1d. a-day, and, from his knowledge and experience, he could say that no man of good character had ever been refused. But the Act of 1870 took away the privilege of re-engagement after seven years, but put it at 12 years, and so it remained until the issue of the Queen's Regulations last year. By those Regulations the re-engagement was almost absolutely forbidden; it was only allowed under special circumstances, and each of such cases was to be submitted to the Adjutant General for his approval, accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which re-engagement was recommended. In 1880, 2,000 men were re-engaged; and, therefore, he assumed that of the 4,300 who were now eligible, or would have been eligible under the old system, somewhere about one-half wished to re-engage. The right hon. Gentleman had assured him that he would construe the new Regulations liberally, and he was certain the right hon. Gentleman would do so if he could. But there was the litera scripta manet. There were the words of the Queen's Regulations, upon which a commanding officer must act, and commanding officers might not take a liberal view of such Regulations. They considered that they were only entitled to recommend private soldiers for re-engagement when there were special grounds; when, for instance, the soldier was an artificer, or in some other way useful. The system of not retaining old soldiers was a bad one; and nearly all the commanding officers examined before Lord Airey's Committee had agreed that 25 per cent of these men should be re-engaged. After this year there would, of course,
824
only be soldiers in the Army who enlisted under the Act of 1870, and, therefore, enlisted with their eyes open; but those men who enlisted under the Act of 1867 were entitled to some special consideration; and, however favourably the right hon. Gentleman might consider the matter, it would be of little use to them, unless he would issue an Order, or in some other way provide that these men should be treated exceptionally—that they should be reengaged now, if they would have been reengaged under the Regulations prior to 1881. The new Regulations ought not to be used to their detriment. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to make this concession, because every one of these men, if discharged against their will, would be warning beacons against recruiting in the districts to which they went. Men who went to India in 1870 had no chance of going to the Reserve, and after serving 10 years in India they were now to be sent adrift. It would be for the interest of the Service, and to the credit of the country, if the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter.
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I must preface my remarks by expressing my great regret that we were not able to bring on this discussion before 10 o'clock to-night. I do not think it is quite fair in the case of these Army Estimates, in which there is a vast sum of money at stake, and upon which a certain number of Gentlemen come down at a certain stated hour to discuss, that we should be driven to the hour of 10 o'clock before discussing them. I say this on behalf of some of my absent Friends, particularly in regard to the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who is unable to be present to-night. He would have been glad of an opportunity of discussing several of the important matters which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward. I must also express my regret that I do not see those Liberal Benches on the opposite side very largely filled. There are Gentlemen on that side of strong politics, and with a keen eye to reducing as far as they can, in the interests of the taxpayer, the great expenditure on the Army. I do not see in his place, for instance, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) or the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands).

825
Those Gentlemen, so far as my experience extends—and on the question of the Army Estimates it extends over many years—have always been in their places; and although I do not always agree with them, still they have always upheld the interests of the public, so far as financial matters are concerned. I was much disappointed because the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) did not touch a little more upon the question of expenditure. I must give my right hon. Friend (Mr. childers) a great deal of credit for the clearness and facility with which he put his proposals before the Committee; at the same time I observed that he was very apologetic. He entered into a long disquisition in order to compare the Estimates of this year with the question of population, and even with the amounts received from the Wine and Malt and Spirit Duties; and he produced figures showing, as compared with the population and Revenue, we were paying very-much less for our Army than we were 25 years ago. I will not follow him in a matter of that kind; but I will go simply to the year 1880, when we left Office. In the year 1880—I take the figures he gave us—the net Expenditure was £14,980,000. What is the Expenditure this year? £15,458,000. That is to say, an increase of £500,000 upon the amount three years ago. That is a very serious addition in three years; and I think the question which the Committee and the public generally have to consider is, what additional value have we got in efficiency for this larger expenditure of money? I have made a careful computation, from which I will give a summary of the number of men in all the branches of the Service this year as compared with the number in 1880. I find that this year we have 2,671 fewer Regular soldiers, 6,036 fewer Reserve men—in the First Class Army Reserve—and 26,138 fewer trained Militiamen than we had in 1880. It is true that we have 2,000 more Volunteers and about 109 more Yeomanry. Then, if I go further and consider what the military necessities of the moment are—and I also consider the fact that something like 10,000 more men have been required for Ireland than two years ago—it makes the account on the bad side, as far as regards our efficiency, for defen-
826
sive purposes very much worse. I find that we are really practically weaker in all ranks by something like 45,000 men this year than we were in 1880, and, at the same time, we are paying something like £500,000 more. If my calculations are at all correct, I must say that that is a very serious indictment. I give my right hon. Friend a great deal of credit for what he has done for the non-commissioned officers and in some other ways; but still the expenditure on the Army has gone on gradually increasing, while the number of men is diminishing. Then I come to one portion of the Expenditure which I shall have to touch upon again, and which I touched upon last year—namely, the Non-Effective Vote. Last year I never got any explanation upon this matter, although I brought it forward in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining it. I will repeat now what I read last year, but which was not explained. In 1880–1 the Non-Effective Vote amounted to £2,743,000; in 1881–2 it jumped up suddenly to £3,019,000; and this year it is £3,049,000. Therefore there is something like a £250,000 increase upon this one Vote since 1880–1 when we left Office. That would account for half the increased Expenditure, and it is this Expenditure, as I pointed out then and again point out, which we had a right to hope would diminish rather than increase; because it was certainly the expectation of Lord Cardwell, when he introduced the short service system, that if that system did nothing else, at least within a certain time—which must now have nearly elapsed—there would be a decrease in the Non-Effective Vote. But that has not taken place. On the contrary, it has gone on increasing, and has made a very sudden and extraordinary jump within the last three years. I should like to pass now to something more interesting than figures, and to touch upon the question of the age of recruits. Something has already been said upon that matter. For many years past I have wished, if possible, to get seasoned men of 20 years of age. I give the right hon. Gentleman great credit for having increased the minimum age to 19; but I must remind him of his promise last year, which he has renewed this year, that before long he would raise the minimum from 19 to 19½ years. I hope before long he may be able to

827
raise it to 20 years. I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one recommendation of Lord Airey's Committee was that recruits should, if possible, be enlisted, for two reasons, at the age of 20—first, because they would be much better seasoned; and, second, because they would cost a great deal less than younger men. The Committee reported that every efficient Infantry soldier cost the country no less than £100, and every Cavalry soldier £96—that is to say, if the men are enlisted at 19; and they pointed out, also, that if the men enlisted at 20, an Infantry soldier would cost £58, and a Cavalry soldier £57—that is, nearly 50 per cent less. If these calculations of the Committee are correct, and by enlisting soldiers at 20 years of age 50 per cent of the cost would be saved, I cannot help thinking it would be better to offer some extra inducement, whether in the shape of pay or as extra bounty, in order to get better and more seasoned soldiers at a cheaper rate. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is most anxious to arrive at such a state of things and what I wish to do, if I may use the words without offence, is to grease his wheels—that is to say, to give him every assistance in arriving at that result, which, I am sure, will be of great benefit to the Service and to the taxpayer. Then I would like to say something about the Militia. The reason why there has been a great falling-off in the Militia is that the Irish Militia have not been called out for the last two years. The result is that whereas we had in 1880 113,500 trained Militiamen, we have now only 87,000 trained Militiamen upon whom we can depend. We are thus deprived of 26,000 trained Militiamen upon whom we have a right to depend. I have no wish to enter into the political reasons for this reduction. This is not the time to do so. I only wish to point out that, so far as the strength of the Militia is concerned, it has been reduced by the number of 26,000 in consequence of the Irish Militia not having been called out during the last two years, and that is a very serious matter. And while I am upon this subject I should like to call attention to an expression made use of by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, upon which he appeared to lay great stress at the time. The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the Militia
828
Artillery, and he said—"The Militia Artillery would become Royal." I did not quite understand what he meant by that—whether he meant that the Militia Artillery was to become Regular Artillery by becoming "Royal," or what, in fact, was the full force of the term "Royal." There have been reports abroad that not only the Militia, but the Volunteers are to be incorporated with the Regular Forces before long. If that is the case—and I appeal to the frankness and candour of the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it is so or not—I think we ought to have been told so earlier. We ought now to be distinctly informed whether there is an intention before long of incorporating the Militia with the Regular Forces, and that the incorporation will be extended bye-and-bye to the Volunteers. Such an expression as the official statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Militia Artillery would become "Royal" certainly puzzled me at the time, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will explain what the full force of the term is. I come next to a question which I do not think has been at all touched upon in the remarks which have been made by other hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the Committee. I do not think that any hon. Member has mentioned the fact that there is a proposition to reduce the number of regimental officers by something like 500. Now, the reduction of 500 regimental officers is a very serious matter. I used to hear it said, in my professional days, that we had not one officer too many. I am perfectly ready to admit that when we come to the Non-Effective Services it is quite possible to make a reduction; but, as far as the working regimental officers are concerned, I do not believe that there is one too many; and when I heard the statement that the right hon. Gentleman was going to reduce the regimental officers by 500 I did think that that was a very large number out of something like 5,000. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain the matter. The right hon. Gentleman touched upon another question in regard to the regimental officers—namely, that it was his intention to abolish all extra subscriptions. I do not object to that. On the contrary, I am very glad to hear that the right hon, Gentleman proposes to

829
make regimental life as inexpensive as possible. There could be no greater boon to the regimental officers than to abolish those extra expenses of which they complain. I hear that there is also a proposition under consideration with regard, to the furniture and mess property. If that question is under consideration, I must say it seems to me that there are a great many important matters now under consideration; and although, of course, I do not wish for one moment to ask precisely what are the instructions which have been given to these Committees, or to expect them to be laid upon the Table, yet there are certain ways of finding out, besides the rumours that are abroad, that great and serious changes are contemplated. I should, therefore, be very glad to know what the right hon. Gentleman can tell us upon these matters. There are three Committees sitting at this moment. There may be more; but there are certainly three sitting now—one on the very serious question of the retention of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals; another sitting, I am told, on a question of the change of dress in the Army; and there have been rumours abroad that the old traditional red coat is to be done away with. That may, or may not, be so; but if there is any intention of the kind, I think the public and the House cannot be too soon informed. There have also been reports and rumours that may not be true; but they only show how very much excited the public mind is about these matters; and there have been so many changes in the Army that it is impossible to predict what other changes may not be in store. There have been rumours abroad that the patronage of the colonels of the Guards is to be done away with, and that they are no longer to appoint to first commissions. That may be, or may not be, true. I do not for a moment say that it is so but I wish to point out, in regard to this and other matters, that when we find two or three Committees appointed to consider what may turn out to be very serious changes in the Army, and we have hints dropped here, and hints dropped there, and remarks made that certain services are to become "Royal," and so forth, it is impossible for us to know exactly where we are; and I am bound to say that the impression is gaining ground that revolutionary
830
changes are in contemplation, and that, notwithstanding the changes which have taken place within the last 10 years, the Army is not yet to be allowed to rest. I must protest, in the name of the Army, against the course which has been pursued with regard to it. It has been practically turned inside out. Every grade, from the general down to the drummer boy, has had its pay, its retirement, its promotion, and its prospects considered in every possible way; and the result is that many of the older officers are now trembling in their shoes, not knowing what may come next. I put a Question only to-day with regard to the promotion of general and field officers under certain circumstances. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman understood perfectly well what the purport of that Question was. It is not my intention to go into the matter now; but I wish to say most distinctly that it only shows, at the present time, how much our officers are afraid that some change in their promotion may occur which they have not calculated on, and which may tend still further to disgust many of them with a Service in which it is of the greatest possible importance that they should be retained. And now I should like, with the permission of the Committee, to say one or two words on the subject of the guns. I dare say that we shall have to say something about it on Vote 12; but as I put a Question on this subject also some time ago, and as the right hon. Gentleman informed me there was little or no truth in the matter, I think it only right to say that, from inquiries I have been able to make, I have been told that, although, of course, the newspaper paragraph from which I obtained my original information was not strictly true, still there is a certain amount of truth in the statement. This is what appeared not very long ago with regard to the subject of the breech-loaders of the Woolwich pattern. It was stated—
"That about 27 of the guns were ordered of a particular contractor, and a similar order was given to the Royal Gun Factories. None of the latter have failed; indeed, the failure of a Government made gun has been a thing unknown for years past. Four or more of the contract guns are, however, reported to have failed at proof. Neither of them has burst, bursting being scarcely to be expected in guns of the coiled wrought iron type; but the coils have opened, which is much the same thing."

831
These were the observations made in regard to the contract guns, and the answer which I got from the right hon. Gentleman was that I was mistaken, and that the report which had appeared in the newspapers was not correct. Now I am informed that there has been a failure of some kind. [Mr. CHILDERS: I said something more.] I believe that the right hon. Gentleman did say something more; but I cannot give his exact words, as I have not got them with me. But I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that I was not quite correct, or, at all events, that this paragraph was not quite correct, in what it stated. Now, this is a very serious matter. The question of the guns has been under consideration for something like three years. I recollect before the late Government left Office that the whole matter was thoroughly well considered; and it was thought that within a year, or at any rate within a limited time, we certainly should be able to obtain a gun which would not only pass every proof, but be an entirely effective gun. That limited time—whether it was a year or more—has long since passed. We still hear that the New Ordnance Committee is doing a great deal; but so it has been doing a great deal for some years, and as yet no positive conclusion has been come to, and it is becoming a serious matter for the interests of the country. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman if there is any chance of the Committee arriving at a conclusion within a reasonable time. We hear of foreign nations arming themselves with guns of powerful calibre; that their Navies are very much more powerful than our own; and that they are far better prepared with war material of all kinds than we are. It is, therefore, most necessary and most important that our Ordnance Committee, which I, for one, have every confidence in, should come to a speedy conclusion upon the matter. I know that this question will probably be brought on again when the Navy Estimates are before us; but it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee what is now being done, and will further tell us when the Financial Report of the Ordnance Committee may be expected. I do not know that I have anything further to observe which I cannot reserve for the discussion of the
832
other Votes; but I should be extremely glad if my right hon. Friend will add to what, if he will allow me to say so, was his very businesslike and lucid statement some information on two or three matters which were somewhat lightly passed over. I think my right hon. Friend will admit that one or two questions were very lightly passed over, and that other questions of the very highest importance have been handed over to the decision of Committees—questions which, if they are to be decided upon and carried into effect in future years without being first considered by the House and the public, will certainly occasion a good deal of alarm and disappointment. I will not trouble the Committee with any further remarks; but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be able to give the Committee an explanation upon the various points to which his attention has been called.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that referring to the Institution which had been mentioned, Chelsea Hospital, he trusted that no efforts and no expense would be spared to add to the comfort of our soldiers. There were something like 85,000 old soldiers, almost all desiring admission there; and he should be glad to learn that they were placed in a condition of comfort and contentment. The noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Eustace Cecil) had drawn attention to the fact that, at the present moment, there were various Committees sitting Upon Army matters, one of which was engaged in an inquiry into the question of the dress of the Army. He confessed that, so far as his own opinion went, he thought a great deal might be done to improve the dress of the Army. Tight red coats were a most uncomfortable costume to march in, and an improvement in that respect was most desirable. He was also in favour of any plan by which a supply of furniture could be provided for married men which would diminish the amount of baggage which often accompanied a regiment on the march. The establishment of coffee shops in the different barracks had also been of great advantage to the soldiers, and was, he believed, very much appreciated by them. Indeed, he believed that few more valuable boons had ever been conferred upon the men; and he sincerely thanked his right hon, Friend the

833
Secretary of State for the steps he had taken in the matter. With regard to the condition of the Army, it was very well known that we had not got either too many men or too many officers. We had a very small Army indeed, for so important a country; and, so far as the officers were concerned, it must be borne in mind that they were becoming more and more instructed every year in the duties of their Profession, and were, consequently, rendered more valuable to the country. He was, therefore, very sorry to hear that there was any idea of reducing the number of officers. Our officers ought to be the best instructed in the world, and there was no difficulty in obtaining the best men, because there was a strong desire shown by numbers of the most intelligent classes in the country to enter the ranks of the Army. At the present moment we had not got one man too many; and he believed that it would be of great benefit to the country if the services of many officers who were now subject to retirement at an age when they were still able to do duty were retained. The last time that the House was engaged in a discussion of Army questions he had mentioned his extreme anxiety that something should be done to make better provision for the welfare of sick and wounded soldiers; and his right hon. Friend stated at the time that steps would be taken in that direction. He should be glad to learn what steps had been taken. He had himself moved for Returns with regard to the Army Hospital Corps which would show their present state of efficiency, and how far they had been doing their duty. There was one other subject which he desired to mention to his right hon. Friend, in which he had always taken a deep interest—namely, the superannuation of men at a time when they were not incapacitated from doing duty. In the present state of the Army, he felt that that was a very serious matter, and one in which the interests of the country were greatly concerned. He believed that, under the system now prevailing, the country, both in connection with the Army and Navy, had lost the services of officers who were in a perfect state of efficiency, and who ought to have been retained. As he had said already, they did not possess one man too many; and it was most desirable that so long as an officer was thoroughly
834
efficient, and not incapacitated by old age or infirmity, he should be retained, and that when it became absolutely necessary that he should retire from the Service of the country he should receive a bonus. He believed that many perfectly efficient officers would prefer to continue in the Service rather than accept the pecuniary reward they received on leaving the Army. He was satisfied that if any means could be devised by his right hon. Friend and the Government by which they could retain for the Service of the country those officers of the Army and Navy who were thoroughly efficient and willing to remain very great advantage would be derived.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, that he entirely concurred in the observations which had been made a short time ago by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel colthurst) with regard to old soldiers being allowed to re-engage after the short period of service. He thought they had been placed in a somewhat unfair position, because they enlisted in 1870 and 1871 under the supposition that they were to be allowed to re-engage. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would take into consideration the case of those men who were under the idea, when they enlisted, that they might continue to perform the full service for which they engaged. With regard to the remarks which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) in reference to the Guards, he could substantiate all that his hon. and gallant Friend had said. Indeed, he was able to go still further, and to give even stronger reasons and figures than his hon. Friend had done in the matter. The senior subalterns in the Guards averaged now a little over 12 years' service, whereas the senior subalterns in the Line averaged only nine years' service; and he would venture to say that there was no prospect whatever of the junior subaltern officers in the Guards obtaining any kind of promotion for some time to come. The rule was that a major was to be retired at the end of seven years' service; but it must be borne in mind that there were very few officers of that rank who would retire during the next two or three years, and, further, that the Guards had a certain number of officers who would have

835
to be absorbed before any promotion could take place. He believed he was correct in stating that in the Grenadier Guards there were five cases of senior officers who would have to be absorbed. No doubt he would be told that two of these officers had been retired within the last few weeks; but there would still remain three officers who would have to be absorbed. In the Coldstream Guards there were three officers still to be absorbed, and in the Scots Guards also three; but he admitted that one of these had only retired a very short time ago. He must also recall to the recollection of the Committee that, since the new Warrant had come out, there had hardly been one case of a senior officer having been retired from the Brigade of Guards since 1881; and he feared that the cases of retirement in future would be very rare. He did not wish for one moment to say anything against the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed and carried out for the senior officers of the Guards, because he thought that their retiring pensions and retiring allowances were very handsome indeed; but what he wished to bring before the Committee was the condition, and what would be the condition, of the subordinate and junior subalterns of the Brigade of Guards. They could not hope to obtain promotion for some time to come; and while the promotion was, as it were, in a state of abeyance, it must be borne in mind that there could be no fresh appointments for some time to come, while the matter remained in its present condition. He would now pass on to another point, because he believed that he was in Order in speaking upon the present Vote on Army matters generally. Having taken the greatest interest in all Army matters during the past year since the new Warrant came out, he thought he was justified in making a few remarks in regard to that Warrant, and the grievances which had been brought about by its promulgation. He would allude first to a grievance which he knew had already been brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and which he (Sir Henry Fletcher) brought before the House some time ago—namely, the question of the retired purchase captains under the Warrants of 1877 and 1878. Last year he felt it his duty to call attention to the question of
836
what he might term the existing purchase captains before the new Warrant of the 25th of June came into existence; and he felt bound to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having taken into consideration the matters which he had brought forward in connection with these officers. The right hon. Gentleman most kindly paid attention to all the arguments used on the occasion referred to, and most certainly the right hon. Gentleman had taken steps to promote the interests of the officers, and to benefit them to an extent which he (Sir Henry Fletcher) had hardly expected. But there was a case of another class of purchase officers which he had felt it his duty to bring before the Committee that evening—namely, the case of the purchase captains who were retired under the Warrants of 1877 and 1878. He was aware that it was a question of finance, and he must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to use his best endeavours with Her Majesty's Treasury, in order that he might induce them, if possible, to bestow justice upon these officers. He was perfectly aware that the matter did not rest entirely with the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State for War; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would make an appeal to the Treasury, in order that he might obtain funds to apply to the benefit of those officers. They were retired under the Warrants of 1877 and 1878, and a Memorial had recently been forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman on their behalf for his consideration. He would not trouble the Committee with reading the words of the Memorial, because, no doubt, they would be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman. A reply was sent to the Memorial, stating that the application of these officers could not be considered; and, when the reply was received, he (Sir Henry Fletcher) was asked to make a further statement to the right hon. Gentleman. He did so, and he held in his hand the answer he had received, and which, he hoped, the Committee would allow him to read. In was dated the 11th of February, 1882—Financial Secretary's Department, War Office—and it said—
"Sir,—I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th ult., forwarding a letter and copy of Memorial from purchase captains retired on pensions prior to the

837
issue of the Royal Warrant of the 25th of June 1881, and to inform you, in reply, that the Secretary of State for War is unable to give retrospective effect in the cases of officers who voluntarily retired."
In connection with that reply of the Secretary of State for War, he humbly begged leave to state that the officers whose cause he was advocating did not voluntarily retire. There were, no doubt, some officers, and perhaps many officers, who did voluntarily retire under the Warrant of 1877 and 1878; but the case of the officers whose cause he was advocating was this. They were under the Warrant; but they had arrived at the age of 45, at which the Warrant stated they should retire; and it was impressed upon them that they would not receive promotion from the rank of captain to that of major on account of age; and they were told that if they remained in the Service they would be superseded by junior officers, who would be passed over their heads. What he maintained was, that when an officer was placed in such a position he had no alternative left him but to retire. It might be said that this was voluntary retirement; but he maintained that it was not voluntary retirement in the ordinary sense. When an officer was placed in that peculiar position, and told that his juniors would be passed over his head, he had, in his (Sir Henry Fletcher's) opinion, no other course open to him than to ask to be allowed to leave the Service. He would now quote the cases of some officers, each of 25 or 26 years' service, which appeared to him to be most prominent, and should be happy to furnish the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with the list, which he held in his hand. The officers whose cases he selected did not form the whole number of those retired under the Warrant; but he thought they would be sufficient to convince the Committee that the class in question had not been quite fairly dealt with. In giving the details he should have no hesitation in mentioning the names of the officers to whom he particularly referred, inasmuch as they were public property. Lieutenant Colonel Beasly served 29 years—19 years as captain; he passed through the Staff College; served on the Staff; obtained extra first-class certificate in musketry; passed the highest examination in Hindostanee, and
838
qualified himself in every way for command when senior captain of his regiment. A junior officer, however, was put over his head; and he felt, under the circumstances, that no other course was open to him but to retire, which he did, on a pension of £280 a-year. The next officer to whose case he would ask the attention of the Committee was Lieutenant Colonel Rawlins, of 26 years' service—19 years as captain; he was officially informed that he would be superseded if he remained in his regiment, and retired in consequence on a pension of £259 a-year. Had this officer served five months longer, he would have retired under the Warrant—of which he received no notice—on £300 a-year. The next case was that of Lieutenant Colonel Clark, of the 50th Foot, who was informed, from the Horse Guards, that he had become ineligible for regimental promotion on account of age, and was, therefore, compelled to retire on a pension of less than £300 a-year. He contended that if these three officers had been allowed to remain in the Service, they would, under this new Warrant, have obtained the maximum pension of £300, instead of the amounts he had named. Therefore, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence, if possible, with the Treasury, in order that a certain number of officers—not the whole, as he said before, of those who retired under the Warrant—who had retired on pensions varying from £259 to £280 per annum, might be allowed to take the benefit of the new Warrant. He thought the cases he had referred to deserved more consideration, because, although the right hon. Gentleman had said, in answer to a Question put by him upon the subject, that they could not be further considered, inasmuch as the officers in question had received a step of honorary rank, he (Sir Henry Fletcher) wished to point out that purchase captains, under the Warrant of 1881, received two steps in rank, which these officers did not. If the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider these cases, he would, undoubtedly, receive the thanks of a most deserving body of officers, who, for a considerable number of years, had served their Queen and country with credit. He would now turn to another subject that had been before the House during the present Session of Parliament and

839
on previous occasions. The new Warrant of the Secretary of State for War was issued last June, and he had certainly been led to understand that brevet promotion was to be abolished. But since that time a corrigenda Warrant had been issued, under which the right hon. Gentleman had again introduced brevet promotion, and that simply for corps of Royal Artillery and Engineers. He pointed out to the Committee that by this unexpected system of brevet promotion a certain number of majors of Line regiments had been superseded and their interests materially prejudiced. The officers in question were men who had served with the rank of major for more than seven years, most or many of them having received their proper rank for services in the field. By the Return which he held in his hand it appeared that the average length of service of these 20 majors was 27 years; that three of them had been wounded severely; that the number of medals possessed by them was 34; that nine of them were promoted for distinguished service, and that eight of them were mentioned in despatches. Notwithstanding these facts, the officers in question had, by the corrigenda Warrant and the brevet of last October, been passed over by 75 officers of the Ordnance Corps of Royal Artillery and Engineers, and it was only natural that they should feel aggrieved in consequence. It might be said that a precedent would be created if these officers were placed in a position of seniority to the officers of the Royal Artillery and Engineers; but he could safely say that there were only seven Line majors on the Active List who could be superseded before the year 1886, and many of these would probably receive regimental rank before that time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to do justice to these aggrieved officers. He would now briefly allude to a subject which was touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman in the Statement made by him a few weeks ago, and which had also been referred to by an hon. Member opposite—namely, the mess and furniture of officers of the Army. This question had been specially dwelt upon by previous Secretaries of State for War, and it was one which required great consideration. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the officers' mess should be limited to
840
the sum of 4s. per diem. Now, as an old soldier of the Line, and one who had for many years kept up his connection with his brother officers, he ventured to think that this arrangement would interfere very much with the social life of officers in Her Majesty's Service. Further, he would like very much to know from the right hon. Gentleman how it was proposed to carry out a plan by which an officer should be able to get his three meals a-day for the sum of 4s? Was it intended that the Government should find sergeant caterers or mess-sergeants, or were the officers of the regiment to seek out some person who would undertake to mess them at the rate of 4s. a-day? He ventured to say it was impossible for any private person to provide for the officers at that rate; and if it was to be dependent on the officers to select a sergeant from their own regiment to do it, a considerable portion of their time would be spent in endeavouring to carry out the necessary arrangements. He did not for one moment wish to see extravagant messes in the Service; but he thought that this laying down of a hard-and-fast line of 4s. a-day, which was not to be exceeded, would greatly interfere with the social life of officers, and would have the effect of driving men away from the regimental mess to hotels and other places where they could meet with better accommodation. He remembered that 28 years ago, when he was in a Line regiment—a four-company depôt, which he was sorry at that moment was not in favour with the right hon. Gentleman—a squadron of Cavalry was stationed near them, and even their four-company mess was not considered good enough for the Cavalry officers, who would not condescend to dine there, and went to various hotels in the neighbourhood. On the whole, he felt sure that the officers of regiments would not like to have their social affairs interfered with in the manner proposed. In connection with this subject there was another matter to which he would refer. Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to dispose of, or take over, the regimental plate, which was the property of the officers of various regiments? How were the knives, forks, spoons, centre pieces, and goblets, the presents from old officers who had served in the regiment, and the collection, perhaps, of 100

841
years—how were these to be disposed of in view of the right hon. Gentleman's arrangements for diminishing the expense of transport? If it was intended to take over all the plate from the officers at a certain price, he thought they were clearly entitled to information on this head, or sufficient notice to enable them to make their own arrangements, if an answer to this inquiry could not be given at once. There was another matter to which he would call the attention of the Committee—namely, the present position of colour sergeants transferred to the Volunteers. A Question had been asked in the House upon this subject last year; but no reply, as far as he was aware, had been given to it. Previous to last year colour sergeants of the Army were transferred to the Volunteers under certain regulations. They had to revert to the rank of sergeant in order to become sergeant instructors and to serve out their Army engagements. At the time they were transferred the rate of pension was the same for colour sergeants and sergeants; but by the new Warrant brought out by the right hon. Gentleman an additional 3d. per day was granted to colour sergeants. Therefore, as he understood the matter, the colour sergeants who were transferred to the Volunteers before the year 1881 would be losers of 3d. a-day. He maintained that this amount of 3d. a-day should be extended to the colour sergeants now serving as instructors with the Volunteers under their Army engagements; and he could not but think that their exclusion was due to an omission on the part of certain officials at the War Office. The matter being one of great importance to sergeants in the Army, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say that it should be inquired into. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay)that the Home battalions of the territorial regiments were mere shadows under the present system. The Home battalion now consisted of 420 men; but it was quite impossible for the commanding officer to get anything like that number on parade. After a regiment came home from foreign service it consisted simply of a number of recruits, and for years it was nothing else than a travelling depôt, the commanding officer having the greatest difficulty in getting 200
842
men to appear on parade by turning out servants, tailors, cooks, and others. He maintained that, under the present system, it was impossible to make the Home battalions for the first few years of Home service efficient or ready for any emergency. It might be said that they were not required to be kept ready for any emergency; but they had seen, during the last few months, that battalions which had come home from foreign service had been sent to Ireland, and that might occur for some time to come. He therefore urged upon the right hon. Gentleman that every inducement should be held out, and every method devised, in order to enable officers commanding Home battalions to get as many men together, and as much drill out of them, as possible. He was unable to see why men, when they enlisted as soldiers, should be compelled to spend so much time in attending school and gymnasium, which took them away from their military duties. As a matter of fact, recruits were overworked, and were disgusted with having to go back to school. Commanding officers were unable to get their men together, and the consequence was that they had no opportunity of instructing their young officers in drill and other matters connected with their business. He would urge that the attendance at school and at the gymnasium should be limited as much as possible, especially as the soldier was now only allowed to remain a few years in the Service. In his opinion, those few years should be devoted entirely to instructing the soldier in the duties of his Profession. Again, he desired to call attention to the practice of employing men as clerks and otherwise in general offices. When a regiment arrived where there was a general office, the commanding officer was applied to for men to fill clerkships and other subordinate offices connected with it. He considered this objectionable, because it was desirable that every available man should be at the disposal of the commanding officer for military purposes; and he thought that the staff of clerks and others should be formed and supplied by pensioners and Army Service men. Finally, he would refer to fraudulent enlistment, which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said, on a former occasion, was a most difficult matter to counteract; but

843
added that for this offence the House of Commons would not for one moment tolerate branding. He (Sir Henry Fletcher) submitted that the word "branding" ought never to be used in connection with this subject. There were certain ways of marking a man without branding that would enable him to be identified as having previously served in Her Majesty's Forces; and as fraudulent enlistment was one of the great evils to which the Army was at present exposed, he trusted that the authorities at the War Office would use their best endeavours to cope with a grievance that tended so much to the detriment of Her Majesty's Service.
MR. SEELYasked for information as to the proportion which the Artillery bore to the other branches of the Service. He understood that the usual proportion of Artillery in European Armies was three guns to 1,000 men. The 300 guns which we had were, therefore, in correct proportion to the Regular Army of the country; but it must be bore in mind that the Government were forming a Reserve of between 40,000 and 50,000 men, which would increase the number of guns that we ought to have at our disposal to 460. Again, there were the Militia and Volunteers to be taken into account, which brought up the Forces of the country to something like 450,000 or 500,000 men, the requisite number of guns for which force would be 1,200 or 1,500. But, instead of that number, it appeared that we had only 300 guns; and, therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to state what he considered ought to be the proportion of Field Artillery to the other Forces of the country?
COLONEL WALRONDsaid, he understood that the territorial regiments were established for the purpose of enlisting in them men belonging to the same part of the country. But he was also informed that, supposing a Devonshire man came to the London depôt for the purpose of enlistment, although the authorities could send him to Scotland, they could not send him down to Devonshire—he would have to go there at his own expense. He believed this question was one which might be fairly considered by the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad to see that it was proposed to add £10,000 to the sum assigned for
844
Volunteer camps, which there could be no doubt were amongst the best means for increasing the efficiency of the Volunteer Forces. Still, there were other matters in connection with this subject that he might be excused for alluding to. The right hon. Gentleman had invited 15,000 Volunteers to assemble at Alder-shot, to take part in the Autumn Manœuvres, which, he believed, extended over a period of three days. It appeared that the Volunteers were to pay their expenses to Aldershot, but that they were to receive 4s. a-day after arrival. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the three days over which the Manœuvres extended would be distinct from the eight days which it had been the custom to assign to the Volunteers during the month of August? He suggested that it would be far easier and cheaper in the long run if the counties of Devon, Cornwall, and Somerset had a brigade camp within easy distance of Plymouth, at which the Volunteers of those counties could assemble, under the command of officers from the garrison, the same privileges being granted to them as at Alders hot This arrangement, he believed, would be productive of the best results, and he commended it to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. In his own county four battalions of Volunteers went out under canvas, within a fortnight of each other; and he believed that, with a little arrangement, they might be able to get all the four regiments under canvas at the same time. If they could do this it would be an immense boon, not alone to the men, but to the officers also. The five commanding officers in Devonshire—of whom he was one—had no chance whatever of taking part in brigade drill. He had been trying hard to get up a brigade drill for Whit Monday; but he was met by the excuse from the other battalions that the expense would be too great. He was aware that the battalions situate in and near London had great advantages in this matter; and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) could see his way to making a grant, in order that other battalions might have opportunities of rendering themselves efficient in this drill. The efficiency of the Volunteer Force would be greatly increased thereby. He should like to say a word as to the arming of the

845
Volunteers. It was with great satisfaction he had learnt that an additional issue of Martini-Henry rifles was to be made to the Force. They were to have 4,500 distributed to them this year, in addition to the 3,000 they had already, for purposes of match shooting. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could at once see his way to arming the whole Force with this weapon. At any rate, he believed the time was not far distant when they would have it. Perhaps, after what had taken place in regard to the Militia, they might look forward to having it served out to them next year. It would be a good opportunity then for the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the scheme he foreshadowed in his speech, of making the efficiency of the Volunteers depend more on their efficiency as marksmen than on their efficiency in drill. There might not be the same number of efficients in every regiment; but it would give an additional inducement to the officers to look after the shooting, if efficiency more largely depended on it. But it must be borne in mind that it would open a very wide field for dishonesty, especially where canvas targets were used. It was well known that even in the Standing Army, where no money was at stake, men were sometimes passed through their third class when they really had not obtained the requisite number of points. More care, particularly where sums of money depended on it, should be exercised in providing safeguards to prevent "chiz-zeling"—if he might be allowed to use the expression—by the markers at the butts. A great deal had been said about the shooting of the Force during the past 12 months, it having been brought prominently before the mind of the public by the disasters which had been met with in South Africa. Well, he should be glad to see more practice in field firing given to the Volunteers. So far as he and his men were concerned, they were rather fortunately situated in Devonshire, inasmuch as they were within easy reach of a range where they could practice field firing. The officer who superintended the range at Oakehampton had invited them down to shoot last year, and after the practice had expressed himself well satisfied with the result. They had been obliged to go down at their own expense, and he believed that if some pecuniary assistance were given
846
to the men by the State a great many more would, on another occasion, be induced to take part in the work. Some hon. Members had alluded to the Army firing, and to the Committee sitting to consider the question. All he had to say about that was that he should be very glad indeed if every commanding officer had an unlimited supply of ammunition at his command, for this would tend to encourage practice in shooting. The expense would not be very great—he should think £100,000 a-year would cover it—and, of course it would increase the efficiency of the men enormously. He should like to say one word with regard to uniforms. At the present moment the Volunteers wore uniforms of three shades—namely, red, green, and grey; and, so far as he understood it, it was optional with each regiment what colour it should wear. There had been rumours that the Government intended to issue an Order requiring all Volunteer regiments to adopt one colour; and as these rumours had not been contradicted, and tended very much to prevent officers from joining the Force, he should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not any Order was to be issued on the subject. At present the regiment he belonged to wore a green uniform, and the fear that an Order might come down at any moment requiring them to wear red restrained gentlemen from accepting commissions, as, if such an Order did come down, the amount they had expended on their green uniforms would have been thrown away. There was an element of uncertainty about the matter which it would be advantageous for the right hon. Gentleman to dispel, seeing that Volunteer officers were very much wanted. He had been asked to say a word respecting an Order issued not very long ago respecting adjutants of the Volunteer Force being detailed for duty in their regimental districts. He was right, he believed, in saying that an Order was issued stating that Volunteer adjutants might be detailed for garrison duty in their regimental districts. This operated very hardly sometimes where the place to which the adjutant was called was along way from the town in which he was located. The right hon. Gentleman had allowed the officers of the Auxiliary Forces to render themselves proficient in tactics; and he was informed that his

847
adjutant was instructing the officers in tactics, having arranged beforehand the week, day, and hour, when an Order came down from the depôt to say that he was to attend a Court of Inquiry. Of course, lie had to throw over his appointment with the officers in order to attend to the Order from the depôt. If the right hon. Gentleman would take this matter into consideration he would confer a benefit on some of the adjutants. One other question he should like to draw attention to—namely, the position of the sergeant instructors. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, aware that at present first-class sergeant instructors were not allowed to be employed in a civil trade. Beyond their duty with the Volunteers they were only allowed to drill schools, and for that they had to obtain the sanction of the commanding officer. Second-class sergeant instructors, however, were allowed to be employed in any trade with the sanction of the commanding officer, provided the sanction was confirmed by the General of the district. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to putting first-class sergeant instructors in the position of second-class sergeant instructors, it would do no harm, and would be very advantageous to the men concerned. There would always be the safeguard of the sanction of the commanding officer confirmed by the General of the district. He would not detain the Committee any longer, but would conclude by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done for the Volunteers during the two years he had been in Office. They appreciated his endeavours to improve the efficiency of the Force, but, at the same time, wished to impress upon him the desirability of keeping them as distinct as possible from the other Services of the Crown.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, as was usual and natural on the Army Estimates, most of those who had addressed the Committee were connected with the Army or the Auxiliary Forces. And, also, as was usual and natural, these Gentlemen had made suggestions, no doubt very useful suggestions, but suggestions which would add to the already very great expenditure on the Army. Now, the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil), complained that no Radical had addressed the Committee on this subject.
848
The reason, he took it, why the Radicals had not engaged in the discussion was that they were in despair at the great, excessive, and increasing expenditure that took place on the Army. They came down to the House to protest, but they found that their protests were not listened to; and every year, now under one pretext and now under another, the expenditure on the Army increased. He spoke as a taxpayer and as a Representative of taxpayers. At that late hour—12.45 A.M.—he was not going into all the different abuses that existed, and which might be pointed out in the Estimates which had been submitted to the Committee. He would only point out three, and respecting each he would ask for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. He had taken them rather as test questions, in order to show how wasteful the expenditure was on the Army. The first was with respect to the Life Guards. He wanted to know what in the name of goodness was the use of three regiments of Life Guards, two of which were in London, the other usually being quartered at Windsor? He found, on reference to the Estimates, that the pay of these men was £70,540; and, if that was a proper estimate, he took it that the total expenditure on the three regiments was £150,000. These regiments had never been out of the country since the battle of Waterloo, and he presumed they never would be sent out of the country again. It was now generally admitted that these very heavy horses and men were almost useless in time of war. There were some notable charges during the Franco-Prussian War, he believed; but now-a-days a charge of such a body as a regiment of Life Guards would lead almost to its total destruction. As he had said, although we had been several times at war during late years, the Life Guards had never been used. All they did was to provide two men for the sentry boxes at Whitehall, and to act as escorts to Her Majesty when she came down to London, or drove about Windsor. He had been told, and had seen it stated in the newspapers, that these heavy troops could not keep pace with Her Majesty's carriages, and that a regiment of Lancers had to be employed as escort when the Queen came to London. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would give some reason

849
why these three regiments of Life Guards were maintained. In the late Imperial Court of France, where things were done on a grander scale, perhaps, than they were in England, all the ornamental objects of these three regiments were fulfilled by a body which was called the sond garde; and in England, if it were necessary rather as an ornament to the Court than anything else to have a body of Cavalry—consisting of large men and large horses—the same results could be obtained by having 100 men, and quartering them in London when Her Majesty was in London, and in Windsor when there was any occasion for their presence there. His next point was as to the Foot Guards. He did not suppose they were any better or any worse than any other regiments in the Service. What did he find in the Estimates? He found that the special pay of the Foot Guards was £18,250, whereas the special pay of all other regiments of Infantry, exclusive of the Foot Guards, was £10,500. The band allowances for the Foot Guards were £1,200, whilst for all the rest of the Infantry they were £7,300; and the mess allowances were £5,300, whilst those for all the other Infantry regiments only amounted to £23,000. Of course, these figures made the average infinitely greater for the regiments of Foot Guards than for the rest of the Infantry; and he wished to ask this question—Why was all this extra expenditure? If there was a reason for it, well and good; but he did not see any valid reason for this excessive expenditure; and if there was not, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman why, as an economist, and as a Member of a Government pledged to economy, and as a Representative of the Liberal Party, he maintained this expenditure, and did not put an end to it? There was another point to which he would draw attention, and that was with respect to the bands—and he had no doubt many hon. Members would agree with him in what he had to say. The bands were divided into two classes, the useful and the ornamental. The useful consisted of what were called "drummers;" but half of them, he believed, were buglers. There were light drummers and light buglers in each battalion, and their duty was to give the signals, and to go to the front in battle. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might smile, but he could
850
assure them it was a fact that only these buglers and drummers went to the front, and remained at the front to give signals. The rest of the band kept to the rear, and were employed, or were supposed to be employed, in carrying off the field those who were wounded. They consisted of about 20 performers. Each battalion was allowed to take these 20 men from the ordinary soldiers of the line. He would take the number of battalions at 120; that would give 2,400 men in the Army who were absolutely neutralized. He did not think it was pretended they were necessary, or that they did anything that was needful beyond playing music. The music, no doubt, was very pleasant for the officers and others to hear; but the bands were not necessary from a military point of view. If they took the expenditure upon them at £40 per man they would find the cost, beyond the drummers, £96,000. In addition to this, he found that £10,000 was also put down in the Estimates as some sort of allowance to the bands, and this would make a total of £106,000. Now, it was clear that where they had a number of regiments together in a garrison town, like Portsmouth or Alder shot for instance, there was no use, for any practical purpose, of having half-a-dozen bands playing of an evening. The question of the desirability of having these bands had been discussed in the French Army; and it had been maintained by many eminent French generals that great economy might be effected by doing away with them and keeping only the drummers and buglers. But if, in England, the War Office insisted on spending this large amount of money on bands in excess of that necessary for drummers and buglers, he would suggest that when a number of regiments or battalions were quartered together the bands should be sent to the different manufacturing towns and be allowed to play for the benefit and pleasure of those who paid for them. In the town he represented—Northampton—the people were very fond of music, and they did not object to pay their fair share of this £106,000, provided they benefited by it in some way. ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member said "Hear, hear!" but surely it would be more reasonable that these bands, instead of being locked up at Alder shot, should be allowed to play in the evening in the market places of our manufacturing

851
towns. He did not wish to press the matter any further. The noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) had complained that no Radical had spoken on the subject in the direction of economy. He could assure the noble Lord that the Radicals would be glad to go on discussing this matter to any hour in the morning, if they thought that by doing so they could obtain any reduction in the Expenditure. They did not complain of large amounts being spent on the Army in order that the country might be efficiently defended. They wished to have an Army, not for aggressive, but for defensive purposes; but they did hope, now that they had a Liberal Ministry in power, that that Ministry would take the greatest care not only to make the Army efficient, but to make it economical and cut off all these useless excrescences.
COLONEL STANLEY: I do not wish to interpose for more than two or three moments; but I desire to put a few questions to the right hon. Gentleman which cannot be put at any future stage of the proceedings or on any other Vote. I do not rise for the purpose of answering the hon. Member who has just spoken, as I presume what has fallen from him will be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. I only wish to ask, with regard to certain arrangements proposed for the Cavalry, whether we are to understand distinctly from my right hon. Friend that they are suspended for the moment—that he does not intend to take any further action until the matter has again been brought under the notice of Parliament. That, I think, does not quite clearly appear from the remarks he made the other evening, which I was not fortunate enough to hear. As to the question touched on by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), with regard to allowing a certain number of old soldiers to re-engage, as I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman, what he asked for was not that the Warrant should be altered in any degree, but merely that the Secretary of State should intimate, in whatever manner he thought fit, to the commanding officers that his view was that they must put a favourable interpretation on the terms of the Queen's Regulations, and that they were not to be tied and bound to the special
852
classes which, at the present time, keep them from everything but a very partial selection. The hardship is considerable where men have no opportunity to go to the Reserve; and if the right hon. Gentleman finds himself able favourably to consider the matter he will confer a great benefit on a deserving and useful class of men. As to the officers' quarters, the right hon. Gentleman said, as I understood, that he hoped very largely to reduce the expense, both to the public and the officers themselves, by furnishing quarters for them. I would venture to point out, however, that it is not, perhaps, quite as simple a matter as it looks. The question has already been fully gone into, and it must be borne in mind that not only will you have to send officers to particular places where you will have furnished quarters for them, but that you will have to send them elsewhere where they will have to supply themselves with furniture. You will experience the danger of being called upon to incur great outlay without the officers receiving a corresponding benefit. It often happens, for instance, that at the last moment the destination of a portion of a regiment is changed; and it would be very small consolation to an officer ordered to Naas to find that a comfortable room had been furnished for him in Dublin. At present, officers take their furniture with them; and they are able, at fair expense, to shift for themselves. Then there is a question which I do not intend to go into at this time of night; but which, I think, is well worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is in respect to the stoppage of promotion at the present time in the Brigade of Guards. It is well known that the organization of the Guards is somewhat peculiar—that the number of mounted officers, strictly speaking, the number of majors and lieutenant colonels in the Brigade of Guards, is not precisely similar to that of the battalions in the Line; and it is clear that, unless the systems are assimilated, promotion in the Brigade of Guards must be retarded. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman that the whole reason of the original Promotion Warrants was to prevent officers being blocked in the lower ranks and being hopelessly dispirited by the impossibility of rising from the lower to the higher ranks. That feeling prevails

853
in the Brigade of Guards, as well as in other regiments; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider, not whether the Brigade of Guards have received advantages—which I am not here to deny—but to see whether they have received such an organization and such terms of promotion as will place them at least in as favourable a position as the Brigades of the Line. There is another question which is of some importance—one connected with the extension of the ranges rendered necessary by the increased use of the Martini-Henry rifle. That question had arisen when I left Office. The zone of danger of the Martini - Henry rifle is so very much larger than that of the rifles in use by the Auxiliary Forces, that no doubt injunctions will be obtained against the use of that weapon at some of the existing inland ranges. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has taken steps to meet the difficulty. The first thing that suggests itself to one's mind is that ranges should be obtained close to the sea; but at these ranges you are not able to obtain that valuable practice—field firing. I can only express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to lay on the Table of the House some portions, at all events, of the Report of Sir Daniel Lysons' Committee, that Committee having been assembled to deliberate upon the field-firing of the Army. I regret he has not given us something to show in which direction the ideas of the Committee tended. Whatever else I may have to say upon Army matters I will postpone until a future occasion.
MR. CHILDERS: I think it will now be the wish of the Committee that I should reply to the various questions addressed to me from both sides of the House; and I may, in a word, say I am obliged to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen for the spirit in which those questions have been asked. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) has asked me if the Pay Department is working well. The organization of the Pay Department is one of the good deeds for which we are indebted to the late Government. It is the fact that the Department is working well; and we have every reason to believe it will continue to do so. With respect to the Medical Department I may say the same thing. There is no lack of officers, a matter which, in years
854
past, we so much deplored in both Services. We have not found it even necessary to take advantage of the permission granted in the Warrant to go to the Medical Schools for a portion of the medical officers of the Army. My hon. and gallant Friend has spoken of the First Army Corps, and has asked me if I could give the Committee some information about it? He prefaced his remarks by the suggestion—which, however, he did not say he was prepared to propose—that the number of men of the Line at home might, with advantage, be raised by 10,000. I do not deny the advantage from one point of view; and if Parliament desires greatly to pay another £750,000 towards the Army it could be well laid out in that way. I, however, on my own responsibility, am not prepared to make such a proposal to Parliament. I have obtained precise information as to the condition of the First Army Corps at the present time, not only with respect to the Infantry, which I specially alluded to in moving the Estimates, and which I showed the Committee had reached their full strength within a mere trifle, but as to the rest of the Corps. In moving the Estimates I stated that what we wanted was not merely a satisfactory Infantry Establishment; but such a condition of the whole of the First Army Corps as would enable us within a Jew days, on an emergency, to send an efficient Army abroad. I am now in a position to say that whereas the Peace Establishment of the First Army Corps—Cavalry, Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, Guards, and Commissariat—is 27,285 men, the actual strength at this moment is 27,838, so that we have brought, though not without considerable labour on the part of those who are responsible for this part of the War Office business, the First Army Corps to above the Peace Establishment. We shall want another 5,000 men to bring the Corps up to a war footing; but, of course, they can be easily obtained from the First Class Army Reserve. My hon. and gallant Friend thinks we are attaching too much importance to public works at Alder-shot, and says we would do well to spend more upon the depots in the territorial districts, and less upon the accommodation of troops at Aldershot, and he spoke of housing the different regiments in barracks in their own dis-

855
tricts. I may point out, it was never intended that territorial regiments should always be quartered in their own districts. They must, in turn, move from one to another station, so that it would be impossibe to carry out our military system if battalions were always to be in their own territorial districts. I admit that, in past years, these moves have been excessive; but, out of the 16 years in which a battalion is to remain at home, there must be several necessary. What we are doing at Alder shot does not appear to have been quite understood. Many of the huts have become so dilapidated that some of them are hardly fit to put men in them; and what we are doing is, rebuilding the huts with more permanent material, without attempting to add to the accommodation. The rebuilding of the huts was not commenced by us, but by my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Stanley), and all we are doing is carrying on the work a little more rapidly. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) referred to the recruiting Report in detail, and I am glad he spoke too much in praise of the work done by the Department and General Bulwer. He said—though not quite consistently with the opinion expressed by my noble Friend (Lord Eustace Cecil)—he hoped we should not be too fast in raising the standard of age from 19 to 20. I should be glad if we could bring the minimum of age to 20; but I do not think it would be wise to run any risk in doing so prematurely. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), and other hon. Members, have spoken to me about the reduction in the standard of height. The reduction of the standard of height does not at all mean that no men above 5 feet 4 inches enlist. As a matter of fact, the proportion who enlist at 5 feet 4 inches or 5 feet 5 inches is very small. But hon. Members are quite mistaken in thinking we have adopted a standard lower than formerly. For years past the standard of height has varied; it has been altered as recruiting has improved or fallen off. What we have thought is, that it is better to fix a certain standard and not to alter it; and we have fixed it at 5 feet 4 inches, which is above the standard of any other European Army. If
856
it should become necessary to check recruiting, we think it would be well to do so in some other way than by changing the standard. That is the deliberate conclusion we arrived at, after consultation with our Military Advisers. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) has spoken about Cavalry organization, and recommended a reversion to the squadron formation which had been approved some years ago, but which shortly afterwards was changed back again to the troop formation. I think it too late to-night to enter into a discussion of so purely technical a question, although it is one on which there is considerable difference of opinion amongst military officers. There was weighty evidence in favour of reverting to troop formation; and I can only answer that at this moment we are not prepared to revert to the squadron formation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also suggested that the principal officers under the Secretary of State should furnish independent Reports every year as to the work of their several Departments, and that the Secretary of State should lay those Reports with his own opinion before Parliament. I do not think that would conduce to harmonious working, but that, on the contrary, it would greatly interfere with the responsibility of the Minister and the confidential advice of his subordinates. Hon. Gentlemen have spoken of the prospects of subaltern officers in the Brigade of Guards; and I am bound to say that I am not prepared to close the door absolutely to some modification of the present system. What I will say is this—and I think those who offer their criticisms, or who know the story of the constitution of the Guards Regiment, will confirm me—that whatever disadvantages the officers of the Guards may be under at the present time is certainly not due to anything we did last year, but quite the reverse. By the Warrant of June, 1881, we improved the position of officers of the Guards more than we did that of officers of the Line. There is, I admit, a considerable disadvantage in respect to promotion in the Guards as compared with promotion with other regiments. I believe the real secret is this—that a large proportion of officers who go into the Guards do not take that step with the intention of remaining in the Ser-

857
vice all their lives, but only with the intention of spending a short time there, and then following other careers. The hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Alexander) said that at Pontefract I entirely attributed the large recruiting we have witnessed to the improved position of the non-commissioned officers. I never used the word "entirely;" I never attributed the improvement in recruiting solely to any particular cause; neither does the Inspector General, in his Report, attribute it solely to the reduction in the standard of height or to localization. I have read the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and he expressly says the better prospects of soldiers are bringing in more men and better men. The hon. and gallant Colonel asked me a question about the invitation to the First Class Reserve to enter military service in South Africa, and he said we were recklessly dispersing what we had got together with so much success. Quite recently the charge against us was that we were not getting them together; but now we are charged with dispersing them. I think that 200 Reserve men have accepted military service in South Africa; and surely that, out of 25,000 or 27,000, is not a very great dispersion of the Army Reserve. The hon. and gallant Gentleman used language as to the steps we are taking to obtain a better class of recruits which I regret. He said that the less we say about the character of the recruits the better. I deny this emphatically. We want to get out of the public mind the idea that the men who go into the Army are men who have been in some scrape or other. We wish to get men whose character will bear investigation; and I am very happy to say that during the last year we have been getting a better class of men—men whose character will stand inquiry, and who go into the Army, not to get out of scrapes, but because they think the Army is a good Profession, and that, with reference to their permanent prospects, they might as well enter it as folio w any other employment. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman said the territorial system had failed, because so few men were recruited territorially. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred to the Inspector General's Report, he would see that 51 per cent of the recruits already come from the territorial
858
districts of their battalions; and I think that is a very satisfactory result, considering the short time the system has been in force. Then I have been asked again whether I am prepared to allow privates, who have not become non-commissioned officers in their first term of service, to re-engage? To this I must again reply in the negative. If a man has not become a non-commissioned officer it is 10 to 1 that he is not worth re-engaging; and it must be remembered that the additional cost to the State of re-engaging a man who, at the end of his second term, will have a pension, is equivalent to a present payment of between £200 to £300. But, carrying out what I said in reply to the hon. and gallant Member the other day, if there is any misunderstanding in the minds of commanding officers as to the circumstances under which they may recommend men for re-engagement it shall be set right. I said, some days ago, that I thought already some 200 men had been re-engaged, and that if a special cause was assigned, and it was shown that a man was worth retaining, he would be re-engaged. I am told that there have been not more than one or two cases in which men have been refused. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) went into a question which it would be impossible at this time of night to answer; he repeated a comparison he made in 1881, not between the Estimates for this year and for former years, but between the Estimates of previous years and the Estimates of last year. Last year I went over each figure that the noble Lord has given to-night, and explained them, as I thought, to his satisfaction. Now, he has given some figures in the nature of a comparison between this year and two years ago, and says we have this year 2,671 men less than in 1880–1, and spent £500,000 more. I have looked over the Estimates, and I cannot find that diminution; on the contrary, we have 1,000 more men. The noble Lord must remember that two years ago the Estimates showed a reduction of 3,000; and, therefore, as between three years ago and the present time, there is, no doubt, a reduction—
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I took into account the whole force.
MR. CHILDERS: The noble Lord, speaking of the comparative expenditure, said we had 2,671 fewer men, but

859
greater expenditure. Our expenditure depends not on the number of men in a year—
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: What I wished to show was that the number of Regular Forces in this country and in India was, in point of fact, greater in 1880 than it now is.
MR. CHILDERS: I have nothing to say for the Force in India. We do not pay for it, and to refer to it in comparing what we do pay in different years is utterly beside the question. But the simple fact is that between 1880–1 and 1882–3 there is an increase of £400,000, with an increase in men of above 1,000. Of this £400,000, £300,000 is due to Naval Ordnance, £30,000 to the Autumn Manœuvres, and the rest to the Volunteers and automatic increase in Non-Effective Charges. As to this last, the noble Lord is quite wrong. He said that in 1880–1 the charge was £2,743,000; while last year it was £3,019,000, or a difference of £276,000. I explained last year that that apparent increase was caused by the transfer of items from one Vote to another—for instance, retired officers who were colonels of regiments used to be charged to the Effective Votes, and are now charged to Non-Effective. Of course there is, and must for some years be, an increase in these Votes, until the effects of short service on the Pension List are felt. The noble Lord also asked, what does "Royal" mean in connection with the Artillery Militia? Just what it means when a Militia regiment becomes a battalion of a Royal Line regiment. The noble Lord and one or two other hon. Members asked, with alarm, what were the contemplated reductions in regimental officers? I contemplate no further reductions. Lastyear, in doubling the number of field officers, we reduced the aggregate regimental officers by 400 or 500. My noble Friend also spoke about the abolition of regimental subscriptions. I have explained that we are endeavouring to keep down mess expenditure; but I did not say we proposed to abolish all regimental subscriptions. The noble Lord also spoke about the Committee on the change of uniform. I have had to meet Motions brought forward by hon. and gallant Members on the other side of the House—to resist which I had no assistance from the noble Lord—on the subject
860
of soldiers' uniform, particularly in the case of men on active service. I said we had appointed a Committee to inquire whether any changes were required in the colour or character of uniforms on active service; and I was careful to explain that, whatever advantage one colour might have over another in point of visibility, that was not the only question. My noble Friend asked whether it was true that we were going to take away the patronage of the present colonels of the Guards? I have no such intention; but in process of time there will be no longer paid colonels of the Guards. As vacancies occur in these colonelcies, their successors will be honorary only; and other arrangements will be necessary as to the patronage they now have in first appointments. The noble Lord asked when the Ordnance Committee, which has been sitting for three years, would present their Report? The Committee has only been sitting one year, and it has done a great deal of work, and presented a number of most useful Reports, the result of a great variety of experiments; and I think it has done its work remarkably well, and rapidly. The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Henry Fletcher) raised two questions of grievance—one as to retired purchase captains, the other as to the supersession of certain Line officers. As to the first question, I am not prepared to increase the pay of officers who had finally retired under former Warrants. I could not venture to disturb the well-known arrangement in all Departments that, when an officer has retired under the Regulations then in force, his retired pay cannot be increased to the scale of subsequent Retirement Regulations. Any departure from this rule would raise thousands of claims, from not only Military, but Naval and Civil officers. Personally, I sympathize with some of these officers; but I cannot take any action in this direction. As to the question of supersession, the case is this. In the Line, promotion is regimental. It is extremely rapid in some regiments, but slow in others. That is one of the disadvantages of the regimental system; and in dealing with other corps, where promotion is by seniority, all we can possibly do is to see that, on the average, their promotion is equitable. By the great improvement made last year in the promotion of the

861
Line—when we doubled their field officers—we greatly disturbed the relative position of other corps, especially the Artillery and Engineers; and this inequality we have partially redressed. We effected this by, among other changes, allowing majors of Artillery and Engineers promoted before 1877 the Army rank of colonel after seven years, a privilege enjoyed by the Line. This put a few of these officers over some 25 of the Line officers whose promotion was slowest, and in their interest the hon. and gallant Baronet has spoken. But it is impossible to do anything for them; and, in fact, 19 out of the 25 have had slow promotion by their own voluntary action, such as exchanges to other regiments. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. C. Seely) spoke of the insufficient proportion of Artillery to the rest of the Army. I have done nothing to disturb that proportion. The hon. and gallant Member for East Devon (Colonel Walrond) made some suggestions about the Volunteers which appear to me worth consideration. As I have said, we hope to be able to issue Martini-Henry rifles to Volunteers after the issue to the Militia is completed; and I have already expressed my hope that before long efficiency will be tested by some other rule than merely the expenditure of so many rounds. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) asked one or two questions, which I will answer. We have entirely suspended any decision as to changes in Cavalry organization, and no new plan will be adopted until Parliament has been informed. As to ranges, we are quite alive to the importance of their extension, and we are asking further provision for this purpose. Then the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has made some suggestions, and I shall be happy to have his assistance in effecting economies. I shall always give a willing ear to the suggestions of any hon. Member who can suggest any direction in which I can effect economy. My hon. Friend proposes that we should abolish the Life Guards, and complains of the expense of the Foot Guards in London, and the military bands. As to the latter point, whatever some French unnamed Generals may have said, regimental bands are not abolished in Germany, France, Italy, or Austria, and I should hesitate very much to abolish them
862
here. I do not think it would be wise to abolish the Household Cavalry, who form part of the small garrison of London, and who are probably the steadiest body of men in the Army. The expense of the Foot Guards is not so much in excess of the expense of Line regiments as my hon. Friend thinks. He has referred to the special pay and mess allowances to the Foot Guards; but the Foot Guards have not barracks as the Line officers have, and these extra allowances are intended to represent the difference, everything being considered, between the expenses of officers with quarters and others without quarters, but obliged to live in London.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the case of the colour sergeants?
MR. CHILDERS: Yes; I took down the suggestions of the hon. and gallant Member on that subject, and I think there is some force in them.
GENERAL BURNABYwished, in regard to the last explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, that the House should know the officers of the Foot Guards did not draw any lodging allowance. There was another subject, but which had not been touched upon in the course of the evening. In 1877 the right hon. Gentleman was Chairman of a Select Committee which inquired into the best means of providing civil employment for soldiers, sailors, and marines. He (General Burnaby) had always been an advocate for the employment of a certain proportion of soldiers, sailors, and marines in the Public Offices; and he hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that some satisfactory steps in that direction had been taken. He had no desire to take the bread out of the mouths of any persons at present employed in the Public Offices; but he was satisfied that it would be greatly to the advantage of the soldiers if a certain proportion of them were able to find public employment in the manner distinctly recommended by the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman. In the concluding paragraph of their Report, which had now been presented for some years, the Committee said—
"Your Committee desire to express an earnest hope that the recommendations we have made, and the evidence on which they have been made, may be taken into consideration by the

863
Department concerned with as little delay as possible."
That Report was dated 1877, five years ago; and. he (General Burnaby) really thought the time had now arrived when something should be done to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. There was one short passage in the Report of the Committee which he thought was a very telling one, and which was likely to have considerable effect upon the men who were induced to offer their services to the Army. The passage he referred to was this—that if there were to be any inducements in regard to a future provision for the men entering the Military and Naval Service of the country, they should be made known at the time the men entered the Service, so that they might be made fully aware of all the inducements that were offered to them and the prospects they had to look forward to. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labou-chere) proposed to reduce the expenditure upon the bands. The bands were an important element in the Army, and did much to stimulate the energies and revive the spirits of the men. The House should know that bandsmen were trained soldiers and regularly practised riflemen, and that the officers contributed large sums of money towards the support of the bands, and made no complaint. He would certainly protest against any proposition that was calculated to impair the existence or efficiency of the bands. The officers themselves had no wish to reduce the expenditure on the bands, and he did not think, in the absence of any representations from the officers, that any enforced reduction should be made; but, at the same time, he had no doubt it would be hailed as a boon if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would, by making a grant from the State, do away with some of the contributions which the officers now found themselves compelled to make. He believed that such a relief would be highly acceptable to the officers. He did not presume the State would do this, and until it did the officers were perfectly willing to continue their subscriptions from their pay in order to provide that which they knew from experience to be so greatly appreciated by the men under their command. What, after a long and tedious march, when
864
the men assembled round the camp fires, weary, wet, and footsore, was a greater enjoyment than to listen to the cheerful strains of the band? Therefore, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not on any account to take any step that might impair the efficiency of the bands, and do away with one of the institutions of the Service which was fully appreciated by the men and regarded by everyone with the highest satisfaction. There were one or two other points upon which he should like to say a few words. In the first place, in regard to the First Class Army Reserve, he was informed there were reports abroad that some men who were recently drafted into the First Class Army Reserve took ship and went to America; but he believed that it was confined to a few men of the Rifle Brigade now at Cork. Nevertheless, it was certainly whispered currently that many of the men who ought to be in the Reserve had left the country. Naturally the names of all the men who had evaded service in the Reserve would in due course be struck off the pay lists. Some remarks had been made in the course of the discussion in reference to the uniform of the regimental officers. Of course, the uniform was an expensive article; but he was not aware that the officers had made any complaint in any way, and, therefore, the matter should be allowed to rest until they did. The same might be said of the mess expenses. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the mess allowances should not be in any way reduced or increased from the sum at which they were at present fixed; but it was suggested that an officer's messing should be limited to 4s. per day. He believed that that proposal was creating a feeling of discontent in some of the regiments. The officers naturally said—"If a friend asks me to dinner, he does not tell me what that dinner costs, nor do I ask him." The officers in this case certainly did not like the interference to which they were subjected; and the proposition to which he referred was undoubtedly creating an unpleasant feeling among them, and, if enforced, would drive officers out of the mess to get their meals, to restaurants and clubs at greater cost, and the loss of what had been a great bond of union in the English Army. Now, he happened to know what the largest maxi-

865
mum amount expended in mess expenses per month in connection with some regiments was. Take the case of the Rifle Brigade. He had been informed by one of the officers of that brigade, who happened to occupy the position of mess president of a Rifle Brigade battalion, that, after an experience of 17 years, it had been ascertained that the maximum cost was £13 a-month. The officer in question did not consider that that was an excessive sum, nor, he (General Burnaby) confessed, did he. Of course, the officers liked to be not only civil, but to be enabled to return hospitality towards those with whom they were brought into contact, and they invariably did all in their power to render the Army as popular as possible. The extraordinary expenditure of an officer serving in Ireland was put down at £50 a-year. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] He knew, as a positive fact, by experience, that the sum he mentioned was right. With regard to the Reserves, he should like to add to what he had said, that there was, at the present moment, much anxiety to know whether the 26,000 men now composing the Force would be called out for some period of service. When the men were called out under the old system two or three years ago, it was found that some of the men—and he was alluding to facts which came immediately under his own notice—were receiving pay, not only in one, but in two, and even three different districts. The very same man was drawing pay from various distinct localities. A great deal of good would be gained by calling out the Reserves, if it were only in enabling the War Office to ascertain whether the same practice were resorted to now. There would be a further advantage in showing the men that their services were really required. He did not think they ought to lull the men into a feeling that their services were useless, and that they were to rest and grow rusty, in the belief that they would never be called out at all. No doubt, many of the men who belonged to the Reserves had found employment in connection with the railways and in other directions. So far as the Railway Companies were concerned, he had taken some pains to ascertain how many men belonging to the Reserves were employed, believing that it might be desirable to class them sepa-
866
rately, in regard to the time of the year when they were called out. There were times during the year when the Railway Companies could better spare them than at others. The largest number of these Reserve men were employed by the Midland Railway Company; but the Great Northern Company, although it possessed a personnel of about 17,500 employés, had probably the least—namely, 74. The feeling in the Army was that the experiment, so far as numbers were concerned, had failed. The original anticipation in regard to the Reserve Force was that by this time it would have amounted to some 50,000 men; whereas, according to the Army Estimates of the present year, it only amounted to 26,000. He had listened very carefully to the remarks which had been made in the course of the evening, not only in reference to a First Army Corps, but also to a Second Class Army Corps, and he had endeavoured to realize what the existence of this Force of 26,000 Reserve men meant. He was amazed how it was possible that the House could blind its eyes to the fact that at this moment the Continent was bristling with men under arms. Let it also think of the hammers at work in every dockyard and arsenal of Europe. He believed that altogether there were not less than 10,000,000 of armed men in Europe capable of being brought under arms at a very short notice; and without having more regard to Prince Bismarck's or Prince Gortschakoff's men, or those of any other Continental State, as compared to the intrinsic value of the men who composed our little Army, he asked the House to think of the ambitions, the plottings, the plannings in the minds of those who had those forces under control, and to say if it was not absurd to suppose that nothing was likely to happen in the turn of intrigues and the clash of those mighty hosts to involve English interests. Such a position, for a country like this, and such interests at stake, was, in his opinion, a very serious thing to contemplate; and he had been seriously thinking, while the Committee had been engaged in discussing all this minutiœ in regard to uniforms, rank, and the expenses of the mess and the bands, whether it would not have been much more advantageous to consider the propriety of practising the massing together a larger body of

867
men, whose services might happen to be required at a moment's warning, and seeing that they were properly equipped?
MR. DILLWYNsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had intimated that he would be thankful for any suggestion that might improve the condition of the Army. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had certainly made one which would be beneficial to the Army—namely, that something should be done to reduce the excessive expenditure which was incurred in connection with the Life Guards and the Horse Guards. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton; but he (Mr. Dillwyn) thought that his hon. Friend had made out a good case. The Royal Horse Guards were not soldiers for military purposes, but were used only for State purposes; and he certainly thought that, for State purposes, one regiment would be sufficient instead of two. He also thought that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War should have gone into more detailed explanation in reference to the reason why so large a force was really required. It was very well known that these regiments were of no use, but that they were really employed for purposes of show; and he very much regretted that his right hon. Friend had not gone into more explanation than he had done.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Secretary Childers,)—put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.— [Bill 122.]
[Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Ashley.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move the second reading of this Bill. I do not propose, at this late hour of the night, to offer any explanation of its provisions, although I shall be prepared, if hon. Members see fit to put any
868
questions to me, to deal with any points that may be raised. If the measure is read a second time I propose to refer it to a Hybrid Committee of 15 Members, nine to be appointed by the House and six by the Committee of Selection. To the same Committee we propose that all Private Bills dealing with the same subject shall be referred.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Chamberlain,)—put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
And, on April 19, Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Electric Lighting Bill do consist of Fifteen Members, Nine to be nominated by the House and Six by the Committee of Selection:—Committee nominated of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Mr. WHITLEY, Mr. SLAGG, Mr. BOORD, Mr. HENDERSON, Mr. HENRY NORTH-COTE, Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER, Mr. MOLLOY, and Mr. Brooks:—With power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.